Effectiveness of a blended web-based intervention on return to work for sick-listed employees with common mental disorders: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are strongly associated with long-term sickness absence, which has negative consequences for the individual employee's quality of life and leads to substantial costs for society. It is important to focus on return to work (RTW) during treatment of sick-listed employees with common mental disorders. Factors such as self-efficacy and the intention to resume work despite having symptoms are important in the RTW process. We developed "E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational health care" (ECO) as a blended Web-based intervention with 2 parts: an eHealth module (Return@Work) for the employee aimed at changing cognitions of the employee regarding RTW and a decision aid via email supporting the occupational physician with advice regarding treatment and referral options based on monitoring the employee's progress during treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of a blended eHealth intervention (ECO) versus care as usual on time to RTW of sick-listed employees with common mental disorders. METHODS: The study was a 2-armed cluster randomized controlled trial. Employees sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with common mental disorder symptoms were recruited by their occupational health service or employer. The employees were followed up to 12 months. The primary outcome measures were time to first RTW (partial or full) and time to full RTW. Secondary outcomes were response and remission of the common mental disorder symptoms (self-assessed). RESULTS: A total of 220 employees were included: 131 participants were randomized to the ECO intervention and 89 to care as usual (CAU). The duration until first RTW differed significantly between the groups. The median duration was 77.0 (IQR 29.0-152.3) days in the CAU group and 50.0 (IQR 20.8-99.0) days in the ECO group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.390, 95% CI 1.034-1.870, P=.03). No significant difference was found for duration until full RTW. Treatment response of common mental disorder symptoms did not differ significantly between the groups, but at 9 months after baseline significantly more participants in the ECO group achieved remission than in the CAU group (OR 2.228, 95% CI 1.115-4.453, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that in a group of sick-listed employees with common mental disorders, applying the blended eHealth ECO intervention led to faster first RTW and more remission of common mental disorder symptoms than CAU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2108; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2108. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6YBSnNx3P).

What Could Influence Workers' Decisions to Disclose a Mental Illness at Work?

BACKGROUND: Stigma can be a barrier for workers experiencing a mental illness to access accommodations at work. However, work accommodations may be necessary to maintain a worker's ability to work. Therefore, it may be important to develop effective interventions to address workplace stigma. OBJECTIVE: To determine (1) what proportion of workers would probably disclose their mental health issue to their manager, (2) what are the motivating factors for the decision of whether or not to disclose, and (3) what would potentially change the disclosure decision? METHODS: A link to a Web-based questionnaire was sent to a nationally representative sample of 1671 Dutch adults over 18 years of age. The response rate was 74%. We focused on the 892 respondents who indicated they were either employed for pay or looking for employment, not in management positions, and never experienced a mental health issue. This group comprised 73% of the total sample. They were asked if they would disclose their mental health issue to their manager. For what reasons would they disclose/not disclose the issue? And, what could change their decision? RESULTS: We found that almost 75% of workers would disclose to their managers. The perceived relationship with their managers and feelings of responsibility to their workplaces were important contributors to the decision. A large minority of workers would not tell, preferring to deal with their issues alone. In addition, a significant proportion of workers would choose not to disclose fearing negative consequences. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the majority of these Dutch workers would disclose a mental health issue to their managers. The relationship with the manager plays a central role. The advice from a trusted individual and the experiences of colleagues are also significant factors in the disclosure decision.

Effectiveness of a digital platform-based implementation strategy to prevent work stress in a healthcare organization: a 12-month follow-up controlled trial.

Objectives Healthcare workers frequently deal with work stress. This is a risk factor for adverse mental and physical health effects. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a digital platform-based implementation strategy - compared to a control group - on stress, work stress determinants (ie. psychosocial work factors) and the level of implementation among healthcare workers. Methods By way of matching, 30 teams from a healthcare organization were assigned to the experimental (15 teams; N=252) or wait-list control (15 teams; N=221) group. The experimental group received access to the strategy for 12 months. They were asked to complete the 5-step protocol within six months. The primary outcome was stress (DASS-21) and secondary outcomes were psychological demands, social support, autonomy, and the level of implementation. Questionnaire-based data were collected at baseline, and at 6- and 12-months follow-up. Linear mixed model analyses were used to test differences between the two groups. Results In total, 210 participants completed the baseline questionnaire and at least one follow-up questionnaire. There was a significant effect of the strategy on stress in favor of the experimental group [B=-0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.81 - -0.09]. No statistically significant differences were found for any secondary outcomes. Conclusions The strategy showed potential for primary prevention of work stress, mainly explained by an increase in stress in the control group that was prevented in the experimental group. More research is necessary to assess the full potential of the strategy.

Return-to-work intervention versus usual care for sick-listed employees: health-economic investment appraisal alongside a cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the health-economic costs and benefits of a guided eHealth intervention (E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational healthcare (ECO)) encouraging sick-listed employees to a faster return to work. DESIGN: A two-armed cluster randomised trial with occupational physicians (OPs) (n=62), clustered and randomised by region into an experimental and a control group, to conduct a health-economic investment appraisal. Online self-reported data were collected from employees at baseline, after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. SETTING: Occupational health care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Employees from small-sized and medium-sized companies (≥18 years), sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with (symptoms of) common mental disorders visiting their OP. INTERVENTIONS: In the intervention group, employees (N=131) received an eHealth module aimed at changing cognitions regarding return to work, while OPs were supported by a decision aid for treatment and referral options. Employees in the control condition (N=89) received usual sickness guidance. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Net benefits and return on investment based on absenteeism, presenteeism, health care use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: From the employer's perspective, the incremental net benefits were €3187 per employee over a single year, representing a return of investment of €11 per invested Euro, with a break-even point at 6 months. The economic case was also favourable from the employee's perspective, partly because of QALY health gains. The intervention was costing €234 per employee from a health service financier's perspective. The incremental net benefits from a social perspective were €4210. This amount dropped to €3559 in the sensitivity analysis trimming the 5% highest costs. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that the ECO intervention offers good value for money for virtually all stakeholders involved, because initial investments were more than recouped within a single year. The sometimes wide 95% CIs suggest that the costs and benefits are not always very precise estimates and real benefits could vary considerably. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2108; Results.

Comparing stigmatising attitudes towards people with substance use disorders between the general public, GPs, mental health and addiction specialists and clients.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are among the most severely stigmatised conditions; however, little is known about the nature of these stigmatising attitudes. AIMS: To assess and compare stigmatising attitudes towards persons with SUDs among different stakeholders: general public, general practitioners (GPs), mental health and addiction specialists, and clients in treatment for substance abuse. METHODS: Cross-sectional study (N = 3,326) in which stereotypical beliefs, attribution beliefs (e.g. perceptions about controllability and responsibility for having an addiction), social distance and expectations about rehabilitation opportunities for individuals with substance use disorders were assessed and compared between stakeholders. RESULTS: Individuals with substance use disorders elicited great social distance across all stakeholders. Stereotypical beliefs were not different between stakeholders, whereas attribution beliefs were more diverse. Considering social distance and expectations about rehabilitation opportunities, the general public was most pessimistic, followed by GPs, mental health and addiction specialists, and clients. Stereotypical and attribution beliefs, as well as age, gender and socially desirable answering, were not associated with social distance across all stakeholders. CONCLUSION: The general public and GPs expressed more social distance and were more negative in their expectations about rehabilitation opportunities, compared to mental health and addiction specialists and clients. Although stigmatising attitudes were prevalent across all groups, no striking differences were found between stakeholders.

Blended E-health module on return to work embedded in collaborative occupational health care for common mental disorders: design of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders (CMD) have a major impact on both society and individual workers, so return to work (RTW) is an important issue. In The Netherlands, the occupational physician plays a central role in the guidance of sick-listed workers with respect to RTW. Evidence-based guidelines are available, but seem not to be effective in improving RTW in people with CMD. An intervention supporting the occupational physician in guidance of sick-listed workers combined with specific guidance regarding RTW is needed. A blended E-health module embedded in collaborative occupational health care is now available, and comprises a decision aid supporting the occupational physician and an E-health module, Return@Work, to support sick-listed workers in the RTW process. The cost-effectiveness of this intervention will be evaluated in this study and compared with that of care as usual. METHODS: This study is a two-armed cluster randomized controlled trial, with randomization done at the level of occupational physicians. Two hundred workers with CMD on sickness absence for 4-26 weeks will be included in the study. Workers whose occupational physician is allocated to the intervention group will receive the collaborative occupational health care intervention. Occupational physicians allocated to the care as usual group will give conventional sickness guidance. Follow-up assessments will be done at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after baseline. The primary outcome is duration until RTW. The secondary outcome is severity of symptoms of CMD. An economic evaluation will be performed as part of this trial. CONCLUSION: It is hypothesized that collaborative occupational health care intervention will be more (cost)-effective than care as usual. This intervention is innovative in its combination of a decision aid by email sent to the occupational physician and an E-health module aimed at RTW for the sick-listed worker.