Chronic Diseases and Employment: Which Interventions Support the Maintenance of Work and Return to Work among Workers with Chronic Illnesses? A Systematic Review

Nazarov, Soja; Manuwald, Ulf; Leonardi, Matilde; Silvaggi, Fabiola; Foucaud, Jérôme; Lamore, Kristopher; Guastafierro, Erika; Lindström, Jaana; Rothe, Ulrike

doi:10.3390/ijerph16101864

Cited by 81 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerning the relationships between RTW and the quality of working life (e.g., interpersonal relations, levels of social support), our results suggested that supervisor support is linked to job satisfaction [ 62 , 76 , 77 ] in the case of a disease. Despite this empirical evidence, the psychosocial meaning of support should be considered with caution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…All were published in journals included in the Journal Citations Reports. Funding sources were specified, with some exceptions, such as the study carried out by Abegglen et al [ 62 ], which was supported by the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund. The origin of the sample was coded based on the information provided in the description of the samples, with the majority of the research conducted in the United States of America and Europe, while several studies were from Brazil or Japan.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most used are the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) [ 28 , 69 ] and the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire [ 65 , 73 ]. It should also be mentioned that Abegglen et al [ 62 ] and Gragnano et al [ 83 ] presented two recently developed scales: The Work and Health Questionnaire and the Work–Health Balance Questionnaire (WHBq). The former identifies workers at risk of a complicated recovery process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Probably as a result of there being some lack of clarity remaining regarding how well-being at work should be defined and measured [ 62 ], the studies that focus on this construct are extremely varied, with substantial differences between them. It is, therefore, neither possible nor appropriate to make valid comparisons between the different studies since the definitions of the variables and the instruments used vary considerably.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Well-Being at Work after Return to Work (RTW): A Systematic Review

Figueredo

García-Ael

Gragnano

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Employees’ well-being at work after the return to work (RTW) is considered a key aspect of rehabilitation and maintenance of workability. This systematic review aimed at identifying the common psychosocial factors that predict the subjective and psychological well-being in RTW processes after having a long-standing health problem or disability. Objective: To evaluate the subjective and psychological well-being at work of employees with chronic or long-standing health problems or those returning to work after any cause of disability. Data source: Systematic review of articles published in English or Spanish using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE, Psychology, and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and Pubpsych. An additional study was identified by contacting expert academics in the field. The search equations used included terms such as Return to Work, Long-Standing Health Problems or Disability, Work Health Balance, and job satisfaction or subjective well-being. Eligibility criteria for the studies: Studies that included a measure of employees’ well-being at work following return to work were selected for the review. Evaluation of the studies and synthesis methods: The studies were selected using predefined fields which included quality criteria. Results: Of the 264 articles returned by the initial search, a total of 20 were finally selected. Results were organized around the three different theoretical approaches for understanding RTW and its antecedents and consequences: (a) RTW and autonomy at work have a positive effect on psychological well-being; (b) job demand is linked to less job satisfaction, whereas a higher level on the work–health balance is associated with job satisfaction and work engagement; (c) internal and external support is linked to job satisfaction in the case of a disease. Limitations: The evidence provided by the results is restricted by the limited availability of studies focusing on well-being at work following return to work. Moreover, the studies identified are of different kinds, thereby preventing comparisons. Conclusions and implications of the main findings: Employees’ subjective well-being after return to work has received very little attention to date. Given its importance in the current configuration of the labor market, it should be the object of more research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Well-Being at Work after Return to Work (RTW): A Systematic Review

Figueredo

García-Ael

Gragnano

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientific evidence was studied by conducting systematic literature studies on best practices for assessing and promoting employees' wellbeing and health, preventing the development of chronic diseases, and fostering the work participation of employees with one or more chronic diseases [16][17][18][19]. Experiential data was collected through 45 interviews altogether, conducted with managers and employees from various industry sectors, as well as with occupational wellbeing and health professionals from six European countries.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employment and Chronic Diseases: Suggested Actions for The Implementation of Inclusive Policies for The Participation of People with Chronic Diseases in the Labour Market

Silvaggi

Eigenmann

Scaratti

et al. 2020

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, the number of people living with one or more chronic diseases has increased dramatically, affecting all sectors of society, particularly the labour market. Such an increase of people with chronic diseases combined with the aging of working population affects income levels and job opportunities, careers, social inclusion and working conditions. Both legislation and company regulations should take into account the difficulties that workers experiencing chronic diseases may face in order to be able to formulate innovative and person-centred responses to effectively manage this workforce while simultaneously ensuring employee wellbeing and continued employer productivity. The European Joint Action “CHRODIS PLUS: Implementing good practices for Chronic Diseases” supports European Union Member States in the implementation of new and innovative policies and practices for health promotion, diseases prevention and for promoting participation of people with chronic diseases in labour market. Therefore, a Toolbox for employment and chronic conditions has been developed and its aim is to improve work access and participation of people with chronic diseases and to support employers in implementing health promotion and chronic disease prevention activities in the workplace. The Toolbox consists of two independent instruments: the Training tool for managers and the Toolkit for workplaces that have been tested in different medium and large companies and working sectors in several European countries.

show abstract

What is the volume, quality and characteristics of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of multi‐disciplinary occupational health interventions aiming to improve work‐related outcomes for employed adults? An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews

Shaw,

Nunns,

Spicer

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn the UK, tens of millions of working days are lost due to work‐related ill health every year, costing billions of pounds. The role of Occupational Health (OH) services is vital in helping workers to maintain employment when they encounter injury or illness. OH providers traditionally rely on a clinical workforce to deliver these services, particularly doctors and nurses with OH qualifications. However, the increasing demand for OH services is unlikely to be met in the future using this traditional model, due to the declining number of OH‐trained doctors and nurses in the UK. Multi‐disciplinary models of OH delivery, including a more varied range of healthcare and non‐healthcare professionals, could provide a way to meet this new demand for OH services. There is a need to identify collaborative models of OH service delivery and review their effectiveness on return‐to work outcomes. There is an existing pool of systematic review evidence evaluating workplace based, multi‐disciplinary OH interventions, but it is difficult to identify which aspects of the content and/or delivery of these interventions may be associated with improved work‐related outcomes.ObjectivesThe aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) was to provide an overview of the systematic review evidence that evaluates the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of multi‐disciplinary OH interventions intending to improve work‐related outcomes.Search MethodsIn June 2021 we searched a selection of bibliographic databases and other academic literature resources covering a range of relevant disciplines, including health care and business studies, to identify systematic review evidence from a variety of sectors of employment. We also searched Google Search and a selection of topically relevant websites and consulted with stakeholders to identify reports already known to them. Searches were updated in February 2023.Selection CriteriaSystematic reviews needed to be about adults (16 years or over) in employment, who have had absence from work for any medical reason. Interventions needed to be multi‐disciplinary (including professionals from different backgrounds in clinical and non‐clinical professions) and designed to support employees and employers to manage health conditions in the workplace and/or to help employees with health conditions retain and/or return to work following medical absence. Effectiveness needed to be measured in terms of return to work, work retention or measures of absence, or economic evaluation outcomes. These criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each systematic review independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. We awarded each systematic review a rating of ‘High’, ‘Medium’ or ‘Low’ relevance to indicate the extent to which the populations, interventions and their contexts synthesised within the review were consistent with our research question. We also recorded the number of primary studies included within each of the ‘High’ and ‘Medium’ reviews that were relevant to research question using the same screening process applied at review level.Data Collection and AnalysisSummary data for each eligible review was extracted. The quality of the systematic reviews, rated as ‘High’ or ‘Medium’ relevance following full text screening, was appraised using the AMSTAR‐2 quality appraisal tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, with disagreements being settled through discussion. Summary data for all eligible systematic reviews were tabulated and described narratively. The data extracted from reviews of ‘High’ and ‘Medium’ relevance was imported into EPPI‐Mapper software to create an EGM.Stakeholder InvolvementWe worked alongside commissioners and policy makers from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), OH personnel, and people with lived experience of accessing OH services themselves and/or supporting employees to access OH services. Individuals contributed to decision making at all stages of the project. This ensured our EGM reflects the needs of individuals who will use it.Main ResultsWe identified 98 systematic reviews that contained relevant interventions, which involved a variety of professionals and workplaces, and which measured effectiveness in terms of return to work (RTW). Of these, we focused on the 30 reviews where the population and intervention characteristics within the systematic reviews were considered to be of high or medium relevance to our research questions. The 30 reviews were of varying quality, split evenly between High/Moderate quality and Low/Critically‐Low quality ratings. We did not identify any relevant systematic review evidence on any other work‐related outcome of interest. Interventions were heterogenous, both within and across included systematic reviews. The EGM is structured according to the health condition experienced by participants, and the effectiveness of the interventions being evaluated, as reported within the included systematic reviews. It is possible to view (i) the quality and quantity of systematic review evidence for a given health condition, (ii) how review authors assessed the effectiveness or cost‐effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. The EGM also details the primary studies relevant to our research aim included within each review.Authors’ ConclusionsThis EGM map highlights the array of systematic review evidence that exists in relation to the effectiveness or cost‐effectiveness of multi‐disciplinary, workplace‐based OH interventions in supporting RTW. This evidence will allow policy makers and commissioners of services to determine which OH interventions may be most useful for supporting different population groups in different contexts. OH professionals may find the content of the EGM useful in identifying systematic review evidence to support their practice. The EGM also identifies where systematic review evidence in this area is lacking, or where existing evidence is of poor quality. These may represent areas where it may be particularly useful to conduct further systematic reviews.

show abstract

Chronic Diseases and Employment: Which Interventions Support the Maintenance of Work and Return to Work among Workers with Chronic Illnesses? A Systematic Review

Cited by 81 publications

References 31 publications

Well-Being at Work after Return to Work (RTW): A Systematic Review

Well-Being at Work after Return to Work (RTW): A Systematic Review

Employment and Chronic Diseases: Suggested Actions for The Implementation of Inclusive Policies for The Participation of People with Chronic Diseases in the Labour Market

What is the volume, quality and characteristics of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of multi‐disciplinary occupational health interventions aiming to improve work‐related outcomes for employed adults? An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About