Assessor burden, inter-rater agreement and user experience of the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: An analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: As part of the development of the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, WHO and ILO carried out several systematic reviews to determine the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies is a critical step of a systematic review. No tool existed for assessing the risk of bias in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors, so WHO and ILO developed and pilot tested the RoB-SPEO tool for this purpose. Here, we investigate the assessor burden, inter-rater agreement, and user experience of this new instrument, based on the abovementioned WHO/ILO systematic reviews. METHODS: Twenty-seven individual experts applied RoB-SPEO to assess risk of bias. Four systematic reviews provided a total of 283 individual assessments, carried out for 137 studies. For each study, two or more assessors independently assessed risk of bias across the eight RoB-SPEO domains selecting one of RoB-SPEO's six ratings (i.e., "low", "probably low", "probably high", "high", "unclear" or "cannot be determined"). Assessors were asked to report time taken (i.e. indicator of assessor burden) to complete each assessment and describe their user experience. To gauge assessor burden, we calculated the median and inter-quartile range of times taken per individual risk of bias assessment. To assess inter-rater reliability, we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (Pi) for each RoB-SPEO domain, between Pi = 0.00, indicating no agreement and Pi = 1.00, indicating perfect agreement. As subgroup analyses, Pi was also disaggregated by systematic review, assessor experience with RoB-SPEO (≤10 assessments versus > 10 assessments), and assessment time (tertiles: ≤25 min versus 26-66 min versus ≥ 67 min). To describe user experience, we synthesised the assessors' comments and recommendations. RESULTS: Assessors reported a median of 40 min to complete one assessment (interquartile range 21-120 min). For all domains, raw inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.54 to 0.82. Agreement varied by systematic review and assessor experience with RoB-SPEO between domains, and increased with increasing assessment time. A small number of users recommended further development of instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains, especially bias in selection of participants into the study (domain 1) and bias due to differences in numerator and denominator (domain 7). DISCUSSION: Overall, our results indicated good agreement across the eight domains of the RoB-SPEO tool. The median assessment time was comparable to that of other risk of bias tools, indicating comparable assessor burden. However, there was considerable variation in time taken to complete assessments. Additional time spent on assessments may improve inter-rater agreement. Further development of the RoB-SPEO tool could focus on refining instructions for selected RoB-SPEO domains and additional testing to assess agreement for different topic areas and with a wider range of assessors from different research backgrounds.

Is the "Brainwork Intervention" effective in reducing sick leave for non-permanent workers with psychological problems? Results of a controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Both the presence of psychological problems and the absence of an employment contract are related to long-term sickness absence, prolonged work disability and unemployment. Studies researching the effectiveness of return-to-work interventions on these non-permanent workers, including unemployed and temporary agency workers and workers with an expired fixed-term contract, are lagging behind. Therefore, a return-to-work intervention called "Brainwork" was developed. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the 'Brainwork Intervention' in reducing the duration of sick leave compared to usual care over a 12-month follow-up. METHODS: In a multicenter controlled clinical trial, using a quasi-randomization procedure, we compared the Brainwork Intervention (n = 164) to usual care (n = 156). The primary outcome was the duration of sick leave. Secondary outcomes were the duration of sick leave starting from Social Security Agency transfer; the proportion of workers returned to work; the number of hours of paid employment during the follow-up period; the degree of worker participation; the level of psychological complaints; and the self-efficacy for return to work. Protocol adherence (Brainwork Intervention) was considered sufficient when at least three of the five protocol steps were followed. Cox regressions, linear and ordinal regression, and Mixed Model analyses were performed. RESULTS: All 320 participants were analyzed. The Brainwork Intervention resulted in a non-significant reduction of the duration of sick leave compared to usual care (269 days versus 296 days; HR = 1.29; 95% CI 0.94-1.76; p = 0.11). For those working (46%) during the 12-month follow-up, the mean number of hours of paid employment was non-significantly higher in the usual care group (682 h versus 493 h; p = 0.053). No significant differences were found for other secondary outcomes. Protocol adherence was 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The Brainwork Intervention as performed with a low protocol adherence did not result in a significant reduction of the duration of sick leave compared to usual care. It remains unclear what the results would have been if the Brainwork Intervention had been executed according to protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR); NTR3976 (old registration number NTR4190). Registered September 27th 2013.

The effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors may cause selected other musculoskeletal diseases, other than back or neck pain (MSD) or osteoarthritis of hip or knee (OA). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from MSD or OA that are attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing) on MSD and OA (two outcomes: prevalence and incidence). DATA SOURCES: We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the International Trials Register, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors (any exposure to force exertion, demanding posture, repetitiveness, hand-arm vibration, lifting, kneeling and/or squatting, and climbing ≥ 2 h/day) compared with no or low exposure to the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (<2 h/day) on the prevalence or incidence of MSD or OA. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined odds ratios using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using Navigation Guide tools adapted to this project. RESULTS: In total eight studies (4 cohort studies and 4 case control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 2,378,729 participants (1,157,943 females and 1,220,786 males) in 6 countries in 3 WHO regions (Europe, Eastern Mediterranean and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in most studies and with a job exposure matrix in one study and outcome was generally assessed with physician diagnostic records or administrative health data. Across included studies, risk of bias was generally moderate. Compared with no or low exposure (<2 h per day), any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD (odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 2.72, 4 studies, 2,376,592 participants, I2 70%); and increased the risk of acquiring OA of knee or hip (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.40, 3 studies, 1,354 participants, I2 13%); Subgroup analysis for MSD found evidence for differences by sex, but indicated a difference in study type, where OR was higher among study participants in a case control study compared to study participants in cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for both outcomes, the main body of evidence was assessed as being of low quality. Occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors increased the risk of acquiring MSD and of acquiring OA of knee or hip. We judged the body of human evidence on the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and MSD as "limited evidence of harmfulness" and the relationship between exposure to occupational ergonomic factors and OA also as "limited evidence of harmfulness". These relative risks might perhaps be suitable as input data for WHO/ILO modelling of work-related burden of disease and injury. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Usability and consistency in findings of the work support needs assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: Structured work support needs assessment could facilitate professionals and increase assessment consistency. OBJECTIVES: Evaluating usability of the Work Support Needs Assessment Tool and test if professionals' (labour experts, coaches) findings become more consistent after a tool training. The tool includes a 21 item checklist for assessing work support needs of people with disabilities. METHODS: Usability was explored through 28 interviews with professionals. Consistency was evaluated in an experimental pre-post study design, in which thirty-nine other professionals assessed work support needs of standardized clients before and after a protocolized training. Quantitative content analysis was conducted. Consistency of findings between professionals covered three categories: type (client-focused coaching), focus (topics to be addressed) and duration of support. An increase in consistency was defined as a decrease in the total number of different sub-categories of findings in each category. RESULTS: Nineteen professionals indicated that the tool was useful, as they gained relevant information and insights. Regarding consistency, the number of findings differed pre- and post-training for type of support (8 vs 9) and focus of support (18 vs 15 and 18 vs 17). CONCLUSIONS: Participants had positive experiences with the tool. Increased consistency in findings of professionals after the training was not demonstrated with the current study design.

The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to ergonomic (or physical) risk factors may cause osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases (excluding rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and back and neck pain). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to physical ergonomic risk factors for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from these diseases that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors for osteoarthritis and other musculoskeletal diseases. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic bibliographic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The exposure was defined as any occupational exposure to one or more of: force exertion, demanding posture, repetitive movement, hand-arm vibration, kneeling or squatting, lifting, and/or climbing. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. RESULTS: Five studies (three cross-sectional studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 150,895 participants (81,613 females) in 36 countries in two WHO regions (Africa, Europe). The exposure was generally assessed with questionnaire data about self-reported exposure. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors are presented for all five included studies, disaggregated by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector or occupational group where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.84, 3 studies, 148,433 participants, 35 countries in the WHO Europe region, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences in exposure by sex but differences by age group, occupation and country. No evidence was found for publication bias. We assessed this body evidence to be of low quality, based on serious concerns for risk of bias due to exposure assessment only being based on self-report and for indirectness due to evidence from two WHO regions only. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors is highly prevalent. The current body of evidence is, however, limited, especially by risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates for the burden of disease attributable to occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review may perhaps be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Protocol identifier:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

"Acquired brain injury and return to work": the feasibility of a training program for insurance physicians.

Purpose: To study the feasibility (limited efficacy, acceptability, and implementation) of a training program for insurance physicians.Methods: Limited efficacy was evaluated over time (T0-T2) by conducting knowledge question tests using realistic case scenarios, analyzed by non-parametric Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Acceptability was evaluated by asking participants to agree or disagree with statements; for example, the knowledge was "relevant," "useful," or "appropriate." Answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Open-ended questions were used to ask participants what, in their opinion, were the facilitators of and barriers to implementing the knowledge taught. Their answers were coded and categorized.Results: Fifty-one IPs participated in the study. Concerning limited efficacy: the median values of the knowledge scores increased significantly over time and between time points from 16 (T0) to 21 (T1) and 32 (T2), p < 0.00. Concerning acceptability: 46 of 47 respondents perceived the training program to be "relevant," "useful," and "appropriate"; 44 respondents intended to use it in practice. Concerning implementation: participants reported "training" and "utility" as examples of facilitators and "lack of time," for example, as a barrier.Conclusion and implications: The feasibility (limited efficacy, acceptability, implementation) of the training program is demonstrated; the training program can be applied in practice.Implications for rehabilitationThe "acquired brain injury and return to work" training programme can be applied in postgraduate teaching and continuing medical education for insurance physicians.Interactive teaching methods including realistic case scenarios with a link to practice are recommended to provide insurance physicians the opportunity to learn to apply and discuss new knowledge and effectively improve insurance physicians' knowledge.Implementation of a training programme for insurance physicians can be facilitated if a brief summary of the imparted knowledge is available.Barriers, such as "other occupational healthcare and paramedical professionals being unfamiliar with the imparted knowledge" need to be addressed when implementing the "acquired brain injury and return to work" training programme.

Assessment of prognosis by physicians involved in work disability evaluation: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of prognosis of work functioning is a challenging aspect of work disability evaluations. To gain insight into this process, we conducted a qualitative study to determine the aspects considered and the difficulties, needs and potential solutions affecting the prognosis assessment by physicians performing disability evaluations. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 20 physicians performing disability evaluations for the Dutch social security institute: the national institute for employee benefit schemes. Verbatim transcripts were independently analyzed by two researchers using MAXQDA software until significant themes emerged and data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: The responses that emerged from the interviews were clustered in three primary themes. The first theme was "Aspects considered by physicians in assessing prognosis." When making a prognosis, physicians considered the following medical issues: nature and severity of disease, the role of treatment, course of the disease, external information, and medical evidence. Patient-related issues and physician-related aspects were also distinguished. Patient-related aspects concerned the patients' work perspectives and coping or recovery behavior. Physician-related aspects concerned awareness of the physician's own role and reflection on aspects such as empathy for clients and ethical considerations. The second theme was "Difficulties physicians face in assessing prognosis," which included challenges during the assessment of diseases of a complex or less concrete nature, applying prognostic evidence to the individual, and lack of time when seeking prognostic evidence. The third theme concerned "Needs and solutions" formulated by physicians that facilitated the prognostic assessment. It consisted of continuous education, better collaboration with medical specialists and/or labor experts, and the use of prognostic tools such as checklists, apps or internet applications incorporating evidence on prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians identified several medical and patient-related aspects that elucidated the prognosis assessment. Given the variety of challenges and the need for further support found in the current study, future research should focus on the development and evaluation of training, tools, and guidelines to improve prognosis assessment by physicians.

Evaluation of the effects of two alternative participatory ergonomics intervention strategies for construction companies.

To improve the use of ergonomics tools by construction workers, the effect of two guidance strategies - a face-to-face strategy (F2F) and an e-guidance strategy (EG) - of a participatory ergonomics intervention was studied. Twelve construction companies were randomly assigned to the F2F group or the EG group. The primary outcome measure, the percentage of workers using ergonomics tools, and secondary outcome measures - work ability, physical functioning and limitations due to physical problems - were assessed using surveys at baseline and after 6 months. Additionally, a cost-benefit analysis was performed on company level. No differences in primary and secondary outcomes were found with the exception of the use of ergonomics tools to adjust working height (F2F +1%; EG +10%; p = .001). Newly-implemented tools were used by 23% (F2F) and 42% (EG) of the workers (p = .271). Costs were mainly determined by guidance costs (F2F group) or purchase costs (EG group). Practitioner Summary: Participatory strategies aim to stimulate behavioural change of stakeholders to increase the use of ergonomics tools. Two guidance strategies - face-to-face or e-mail interventions - among construction companies were studied. Both guidance strategies led to an increase in the use of new ergonomics tools.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors and of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from osteoarthritis of hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively, attributable to exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. OBJECTIVES: We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyze estimates of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. DATA SOURCES: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The included occupational ergonomic risk factors will be any exposure to one or more of: force exertion; demanding posture; repetitiveness; hand-arm vibration; lifting; kneeling and/or squatting; and climbing. Included outcomes will be (i) osteoarthritis and (ii) other musculoskeletal diseases (i.e., one or more of: rotator cuff syndrome; bicipital tendinitis; calcific tendinitis; shoulder impingement; bursitis shoulder; epicondylitis medialis; epicondylitis lateralis; bursitis elbow; bursitis hip; chondromalacia patellae; meniscus disorders; and/or bursitis knee). For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of any exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors stratified by country, gender, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control-studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of any exposure with occupational ergonomic risk factors on the prevalence or incidence of osteoarthritis and/or selected musculoskeletal diseases, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., no exposure). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

Perspectives of unemployed workers with mental health problems: barriers to and solutions for return to work.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the barriers to and solutions for return to work (RTW) from the perspective of unemployed workers who were sick-listed due to mental health problems. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 sick-listed unemployed workers with mental health problems. Qualitative data analysis was performed, using a process of identifying, coding, and categorising the patterns in data. RESULTS: All workers experienced multiple problems in different domains of life related to their disease, personal circumstances (e.g., divorced, debts) and their environment (e.g., labour market problems, issues with the Social Security Agency). Workers differed in the way they perceived their RTW process and in the extent to which they were able to envision and implement the solutions for RTW, thus resulting in three types of workers' attitudes towards their own RTW process: (1) "frozen"; (2) "insightful though passive"; and (3) "action mode". CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the sick-listed unemployed workers with mental health problems have to deal with multiple problems, of which medical problems are only a part. These workers need help aimed at their coping methods according to one of the three types of workers' characteristics. Moreover, they need specific help organising and structuring their problems, getting their life back on track, and finding employment. Implications for Rehabilitation Unemployed workers with mental health problems face considerable challenges which impede their return to work. Evaluating the workers' attitude may provide useful information on their own return-to-work process. In many cases, workers indicate a need for coaching to help them with problem-solving, planning, gaining structure, getting their life back on track, and finding employment. Rehabilitation professionals should tailor RTW interventions to the needs of these workers, aimed at their specific problems and taking into account the workers' coping methods according to one of three types of workers' attitudes towards their own RTW process.

Adjustment between work demands and health needs: Development of the Work-Health Balance Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: This study presented the construct of Work-Health Balance (WHB) and the design and validation of the Work-Health Balance Questionnaire (WHBq). More and more workers have a long-standing health problem or disability (LSHPD). The management of health needs and work demands is crucial for the quality of working life and work retention of these workers. However, no instrument exists measuring this process. The WHBq assesses key factors in the process of adjusting between health needs and work demands. METHOD: We tested the reliability and validity of 38 items with cross-sectional data from a sample of 321 Italian workers (mean age = 45 ± 11 years) using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Rasch analyses, and the correlations with other relevant variables. RESULTS: The instrument ultimately consisted of 17 items that reliably measured three factors: work-health incompatibility, health climate, and external support. These dimensions were associated with well-being in the workplace, dysfunctional behaviors at work, and general psychological health. A higher level on the WHB index was associated with lower levels of presenteeism, emotional exhaustion, workaholism, and psychological distress and with higher levels of job satisfaction and work engagement, supporting the construct validity of the instrument. CONCLUSION: The WHBq shows good psychometric characteristics and strong and theoretically consistent relationships with important and well-known variables. These results make the WHBq a promising tool in the study and management of health of employees, especially for the work continuation of employees returning to work with LSHPD. (PsycINFO Database Record

Cancer@Work - a nurse-led, stepped-care, e-health intervention to enhance the return to work of patients with cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the importance of work for patients with cancer is nowadays more acknowledged both in the literature as well as in cancer survivorship care, effective interventions targeting the return to work of these patients are still scarce. Therefore, we developed a nurse-led, stepped-care, e-health intervention aimed at enhancing the return to work of patients with cancer. The objective of this study is to describe the content of the intervention and the study design used to evaluate the feasibility and (cost) effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: We designed a multi-centre randomised controlled trial with a follow-up of 12 months. Patients who have paid employment at the time of diagnosis, are on sick leave and are between 18-62 years old will be eligible to participate. After patients have signed the informed consent form and filled in the baseline questionnaire, they are randomly allocated to either the nurse-led, stepped-care, e-health intervention called Cancer@Work, or care as usual. The primary outcome is sustainable return to work. Secondary outcomes are sick leave days, work ability, work functioning, quality of life, quality of working life and time from initial sick leave to full return to work without extensive need for recovery. The feasibility of the Cancer@Work intervention and direct and indirect costs will be determined. Outcomes will be assessed by questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of follow-up. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide new insights into the feasibility and (cost) effectiveness of Cancer@Work, a nurse-led, stepped-care, e-health intervention for cancer patients aimed at enhancing their return to work. If proven effective, the intention is to implement the Cancer@Work intervention in usual psycho-oncological care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR (Netherlands Trial Registry): NTR5190 . Registered on 18 June 2015.

Employment status, difficulties at work and quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess employment status, difficulties at work and sick leave in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and their relation with sociodemographic and clinical factors, quality of life (QoL), and anxiety and depression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IBD patients attending an IBD outpatients' clinic received self-report questionnaires on employment status, IBD-related difficulties at work and sick leave (Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness), sociodemographic factors, QoL (Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and 12-item Short-form Health Survey) and anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Disease activity was assessed by their gastroenterologist. Associations between paid employment and sick leave with sociodemographic and clinical factors, QoL and anxiety and depression were assessed by regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 202 IBD patients of working age, with a mean age of 41 years, participated; 63% had Crohn's disease and 37% had ulcerative colitis, and 57% were women and 19% had active disease. In all, 123 (61%) patients were in paid employment, of whom 31 (25%) were on sick leave, whereas 46 (23%) received a disability pension. Concentration problems (72%), low working pace (78%) and delayed work production (50%) were the most prevalent IBD-related work difficulties. IBD patients without paid employment were older and more often women, with active disease, lower QoL and higher anxiety and depression rates. Sick leave was associated with lower QoL and higher anxiety and depression rates. CONCLUSION: More than half of IBD patients were in paid employment, whereas almost a quarter was receiving a disability pension. A large majority experienced work difficulties. Having no paid employment was associated with poorer QoL and more anxiety and depression symptomatology.

Design of a multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored clinical support intervention to enhance return to work for gastrointestinal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer is frequently diagnosed in people of working age, and many GI cancer patients experience work-related problems. Although these patients often experience difficulties returning to work, supportive work-related interventions are lacking. We have therefore developed a tailored work-related support intervention for GI cancer patients, and we aim to evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared with the usual care provided. If this intervention proves effective, it can be implemented in practice to support GI cancer patients after diagnosis and to help them return to work. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed a multicentre randomized controlled trial with a follow-up of twelve months. The study population (N = 310) will include individuals aged 18-63 years diagnosed with a primary GI cancer and employed at the time of diagnosis. The participants will be randomized to the intervention or to usual care. 'Usual care' is defined as psychosocial care in which work-related issues are not discussed. The intervention group will receive tailored work-related support consisting of three face-to-face meetings of approximately 30 min each. Based on the severity of their work-related problems, the intervention group will be divided into groups receiving three types of support (A, B or C). A different supportive healthcare professional will be available for each group: an oncological nurse (A), an oncological occupational physician (B) and a multidisciplinary team (C) that includes an oncological nurse, oncological occupational physician and treating oncologist/physician. The primary outcome measure is return to work (RTW), defined as the time to a partial or full RTW. The secondary outcomes are work ability, work limitations, quality of life, and direct and indirect costs. DISCUSSION: The hypothesis is that tailored work-related support for GI cancer patients is more effective than usual care in terms of the RTW. The intervention is innovative in that it combines oncological and occupational care in a clinical setting, early in the cancer treatment process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: METC protocol number NL51444.018.14/Netherlands Trial Register number NTR5022 . Registered 6 March 2015.

National evaluation of strategies to reduce safety violations for working from heights in construction companies: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a face-to-face strategy and a direct mail strategy on safety violations while working from heights among construction companies compared to a control condition. METHODS: Construction companies with workers at risk for fall injuries were eligible for this three-armed randomized controlled trial. In total, 27 cities were randomly assigned to intervention groups-where eligible companies were given either a face-to-face guidance strategy or a direct mailing strategy with access to internet facilities-or to a control group. The primary outcomes were the number and type of safety violations recorded by labor inspectors after three months. A process evaluation for both strategies was performed to determine reach, program implementation, satisfaction, knowledge and perceived safety behavior. A cost analysis was performed to establish the financial costs for each intervention strategy. Analyses were done by intention to treat. RESULTS: In total, 41% (n = 88) of the companies eligible for the face-to-face intervention participated and 73% (n = 69) for direct mail. Intervention materials were delivered to 69 % (face-to-face group) and 100 % (direct mail group); completion of intervention activities within companies was low. Satisfaction, increase in knowledge, and safety behavior did not differ between the intervention groups. Costs for personal advice were 28% higher than for direct mail. Ultimately, nine intervention companies were captured in the 288 worksite measurements performed by the labor inspectorate. No statistical differences in mean number of safety violations (1.8-2.4) or penalties (72%-100%) were found between the intervention and control groups based on all worksite inspections. CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions about the effect of face-to-face and direct mail strategies on safety violations could be drawn due to the limited number of intervention companies captured in the primary outcome measurements. The costs for a face-to-face strategy are higher compared with a direct mail strategy. No difference in awareness and attitude for safe working was found between employers and workers between both strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR 4298 on 29-Nov-2013.

Return-to-work intervention for cancer survivors: budget impact and allocation of costs and returns in the Netherlands and six major EU-countries.

BACKGROUND: Return-to-work (RTW)-interventions support cancer survivors in resuming work, but come at additional healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to assess the budget impact of a RTW-intervention, consisting of counselling sessions with an occupational physician and an exercise-programme. The secondary objective was to explore how the costs of RTW-interventions and its financial revenues are allocated among the involved stakeholders in several EU-countries. METHODS: The budget impact (BI) of a RTW-intervention versus usual care was analysed yearly for 2015-2020 from a Dutch societal- and from the perspective of a large cancer centre. The allocation of the expected costs and financial benefits for each of the stakeholders involved was compared between the Netherlands, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden. RESULTS: The average intervention costs in this case were €1,519/patient. The BI for the Netherlands was €-14.7 m in 2015, rising to €-71.1 m in 2020, thus the intervention is cost-saving as the productivity benefits outweigh the intervention costs. For cancer centres the BI amounts to €293 k in 2015, increasing to €1.1 m in 2020. Across European countries, we observed differences regarding the extent to which stakeholders either invest or receive a share of the benefits from offering a RTW-intervention. CONCLUSION: The RTW-intervention is cost-saving from a societal perspective. Yet, the total intervention costs are considerable and, in many European countries, mainly covered by care providers that are not sufficiently reimbursed.

Do unfavourable working conditions explain mental health inequalities between ethnic groups? Cross-sectional data of the HELIUS study.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic inequalities in mental health have been found in many high-income countries. The purpose of this study is to test whether mental health inequalities between ethnic groups are mediated by exposure to unfavourable working conditions. METHODS: Workers (n = 6278) were selected from baseline data of the multi-ethnic HELIUS study. Measures included two indices of unfavourable working conditions (lack of recovery opportunities, and perceived work stress), and two mental health outcomes (generic mental health: MCS-12 and depressive symptoms: PHQ-9). Mediation of the relationships between ethnicity and mental health by unfavourable working conditions was tested using the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals technique. Linear models with and without the mediators included, and adjusted for gender and age. Attenuation was calculated as the change in B between the models with and without mediators. RESULTS: The sample comprised Dutch (1355), African Surinamese (1290), South-Asian Surinamese (1121), Turkish (1090), Ghanaian (729), and Moroccan (693) workers. After controlling for age and gender, all ethnic minorities had a higher risk of mental health problems as compared to the Dutch host population, with the exception of Ghanaians in the case of depressive symptoms, and African Surinamese workers with regard to both outcomes. The Turkish group stands out with the lowest mental health on both mental health indices, followed by Moroccan and South-Asian Surinamese workers. A lack of recovery opportunities mediated the relationship between ethnic group and a higher risk of mental health problems. Perceived work stress did not contribute to the explanation of ethnic inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: The higher risk of mental health problems in ethnic minority groups can be partly accounted for by a lack of recovery opportunities at work, but not by perceived work stress. This may imply that workplace prevention targeting recovery opportunities have the potential to reduce ethnic inequalities, but ethnic-specific experiences at the workplace need to be further explored.

Cost-effectiveness of 40-hour versus 100-hour vocational rehabilitation on work participation for workers on sick leave due to subacute or chronic musculoskeletal pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although vocational rehabilitation is a widely advocated intervention for workers on sick leave due to subacute or chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain, the optimal dosage of effective and cost-effective vocational rehabilitation remains unknown. The objective of this paper is to describe the design of a non-inferiority trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 40-h multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation compared with 100-h multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation on work participation for workers on sick leave due to subacute or chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS/DESIGN: A non-inferiority study design will be applied. The study population consists of workers who are on part-time or full-time sick leave due to subacute or chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain. Two multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation programs following the bio-psychosocial approach will be evaluated in this study: 40-h vocational rehabilitation and 100-h vocational rehabilitation, both delivered over a maximum of 15 weeks. The 100-h vocational rehabilitation comprises five modules: work participation coordination, graded activity, cognitive behavioral therapy, group education, and relaxation. The 40-h vocational rehabilitation comprises work participation coordination and a well-reasoned choice from the other four modules. Four rehabilitation centers will participate in this study, each delivering both interventions. Patients will be randomized into one of the interventions, stratified for the duration of sick leave (<6 weeks or ≥ 6 weeks) and type of sick leave (part-time or full-time). The primary outcome is work participation, measured by self-reported sick leave days, and will be assessed at baseline, mid-term, discharge, and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes are work ability, disability, quality of life, and physical functioning and will be assessed at baseline, discharge, and at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Cost outcomes are absenteeism, presenteeism, healthcare usage, and travelling costs. Cost-effectiveness will be evaluated from the societal and employer perspectives. DISCUSSION: The results obtained from this study will be useful for vocational rehabilitation practice and will provide stakeholders with relevant insights into two versions of vocational rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register identifier: NTR4362 (registered 17 March 2014).

The effectiveness of the "Brainwork Intervention" in reducing sick leave for unemployed workers with psychological problems: design of a controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Among the working population, unemployed, temporary agency and expired fixed-term contract workers having psychological problems are a particularly vulnerable group, at risk for sickness absence and prolonged work disability. Studies investigating the effectiveness of return-to-work (RTW) interventions on these workers, who are without an employment contract, are scarce. Therefore, a RTW intervention called 'Brainwork' was developed. The objective of this paper is to describe the 'Brainwork Intervention' and the trial design evaluating its effectiveness in reducing the duration of sick leave compared to usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: The 'Brainwork Intervention' is designed to assist unemployed, temporary agency and expired fixed-term contract workers who are sick-listed due to psychological problems, with their return to work. The 'Brainwork Intervention' uses an activating approach: in the early stage of sick leave, workers are encouraged to exercise and undertake activities aimed at regaining control and functional recovery while job coaches actively support their search for (temporary) jobs. The content of the intervention is tailored to the severity of the psychological problems and functional impairments, as well as the specific psychosocial problems encountered by the sick-listed worker. The intervention study is designed as a quasi-randomized controlled clinical trial with a one-year follow-up and is being conducted in the Netherlands. The control group receives care as usual with minimal involvement of occupational health professionals. Outcomes are measured at baseline, and 4, 8 and 12 months after initiation of the program. The primary outcome measure is the duration of sick leave. Secondary outcome measures are: the proportion of subjects who returned to work at 8 and 12 months; the number of days of paid employment during the follow-up period; the degree of worker participation; the level of psychological complaints; and the self-efficacy for return to work. The cost-benefit analysis will be evaluated from an insurer's perspective. DISCUSSION: The methodological considerations of the study design are discussed. In this trial we evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in real occupational health practice, rather than under highly controlled circumstances. The results will be published in 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4190. Date of registration: September 27(th) 2013.

Exploring novice nurses' needs regarding their work-related health: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To investigate Dutch novice nurses' experiences and needs regarding occupational health support to prevent work-related health problems and to keep them well-functioning. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was conducted with six nursing students and eight newly qualified nurses. The interviews covered three topics: experiences with the link between work and health, received occupational health support, and occupational health support needs. Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Participants reported experiences with work-related health problems early in their career and described experiences with how health problems lead to suboptimal work functioning. Occupational health support needs included knowledge and psychosocial support during nursing education, e.g. through paying attention to dealing with shift work, or career counselling. Also, they reported a need for knowledge and psychosocial support at the start of their clinical placement or new job in the hospital, e.g. information from occupational health services or having a mentor. Furthermore, they reported that occupational health support requires a more general place at work through offering knowledge, e.g. tailored advice on proper lifting position; psychosocial support, e.g. positive team atmosphere; and physical support, e.g. suitable preventive measures. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational health support for novice nurses is important, since they already experience work-related health problems and suboptimal work functioning due to health problems early in their career and while still in training to be a nurse. Novice nurses should be given more knowledge and support to help them stay healthy and well-functioning in their work. This is a joint responsibility of nurse educators, the employer and occupational health services.