Does mindfulness affect participants’ response to a vocational rehabilitation program?

Abstract

Objective: The study aims were to investigate whether mindfulness predicts improved work ability after a multifactorial vocational rehabilitation program in Norway and to examine the mediating influence of mindfulness in the relationship between personal health factors and changes in work ability in response to the program. Methods: Seventy-four participants on long-term sick leave completed questionnaires assessing mindfulness, work ability, functional health, psychological functioning, and demographics before and after a 4-6-week multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation program. In addition to a standard logistic regression analysis, a bias-corrected bootstrapping technique was used to test the hypothesized indirect effects. Results: Enhanced mindfulness over the course of the program significantly predicted a positive change in work ability. Furthermore, decreased personal burnout and enhanced selfesteem were both unique predictors of such positive change. Mindfulness mediated the effects of personal burnout and selfesteem on participants' work ability. Increased body responsiveness and sense of mastery, and decreased pain consequences and subjective health complaints, were indirectly related to positive changes in work ability through increased mindfulness. Conclusion: Enhancing mindfulness skills is useful for improving the work ability of Norwegians on long-term sick leave.

A scoping review to ascertain the parameters for an evidence synthesis of psychological interventions to improve work and wellbeing outcomes among employees with chronic pain

“…Thirty-one studies (34%) were part of a registered clinical trial. There was no control condition in n = 42 (46%) of the studies (Angst et al, 2014 ; Asih et al, 2018 ; Beemster et al, 2020 ; Bergstrom et al, 2010 ; Burton et al, 2016 ; Caby et al, 2016 ; Hardison & Roll, 2017 ; Harris et al, 2017 ; Hartzell et al, 2014 ; Ibrahim et al, 2019 ; Johansen et al, 2019 ; Lebon et al, 2017 ; Lindholdt et al, 2017 ; Luthi et al, 2018 ; Mayer et al, 2013 ; McCubbin et al, 2014 ; Mochari-Greenberger et al, 2020 ; Pato et al, 2010 ; Poulain et al, 2010 ; Reme et al, 2016 ; Stein & Miclescu, 2013 ; Vindholmen et al, 2016 ; Calner et al, 2017 ; Ernsten & Lillefjell, 2014 ; Gismervik et al, 2020 ; Hara, Bjørngaard, Jacobsen et al, 2018 ; Howard et al, 2012 ; Jensen et al, 2011 ; Jensen et al, 2012a ; Kold et al, 2012 ; Luk et al, 2010 ; Myhr & Augestad, 2013 ; Pereira et al, 2019 ; Saltychev et al, 2014 ; Sorensen et al, 2010 ; Stapelfeldt et al, 2011 ; Streibelt & Bethge, 2014 ; Sjöström et al, 2013 ; Sullivan & Simon, 2012 ; Sullivan & Adams, 2010 ; Sullivan et al, 2012 ; Tavares Figueiredo et al, 2016 ). Of the remaining 54% of studies containing a control group, 61% of them ( Berglund et al, 2018 ; Bergström et al, 2012 ; Busch et al, 2011 ; Busch et al, 2018 ; Campello et al, 2012 ; Chaléat-Valayer et al, 2016 ; Frederiksen et al, 2017 ; Hara, Bjørngaard,...…”