Adolescents' interactive electronic device use, sleep and mental health: a systematic review of prospective studies.

Optimal sleep, both in terms of duration and quality, is important for adolescent health. However, young people's sleeping habits have worsened over recent years. Access to and use of interactive electronic devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, portable gaming devices) and social media have become deep-rooted elements of adolescents' lives and are associated with poor sleep. Additionally, there is evidence of increases in poor mental health and well-being disorders in adolescents; further linked to poor sleep. This review aimed to summarise the longitudinal and experimental evidence of the impact of device use on adolescents' sleep and subsequent mental health. Nine electronic bibliographical databases were searched for this narrative systematic review in October 2022. Of 5779 identified unique records, 28 studies were selected for inclusion. A total of 26 studies examined the direct link between device use and sleep outcomes, and four reported the indirect link between device use and mental health, with sleep as a mediator. The methodological quality of the studies was generally poor. Results demonstrated that adverse implications of device use (i.e., overuse, problematic use, telepressure, and cyber-victimisation) impacted sleep quality and duration; however, relationships with other types of device use were unclear. A small but consistent body of evidence showed sleep mediates the relationship between device use and mental health and well-being in adolescents. Increasing our understanding of the complexities of device use, sleep, and mental health in adolescents are important contributions to the development of future interventions and guidelines to prevent or increase resilience to cyber-bullying and ensure adequate sleep.

Contextual influences on the role of evidence in e-cigarette recommendations: a multi-method analysis of international and national jurisdictions.

Background: E-cigarette policy has varied across jurisdictions, contrasting with the previous coordinated approach of international tobacco control communities. Aims and objectives: A multi-method case study approach was used to understand the role of evidence and external and internal contextual factors in the development of public health recommendations across four purposively selected jurisdictions (WHO, UK, Australia and USA). Methods: Informed by Dobrow et al.'s (2004) conceptual framework for context-based evidencebased decision-making, four data sources were drawn upon: 1) 15 public health bodies' e-cigarette recommendation documents, 2) seven development documents produced by the public health bodies, 3) sources of evidence cited in the public health bodies' recommendation documents and 4) 15 qualitative interviews with experts. Thematic analysis and citation analysis were conducted to aid triangulation of evidence. Findings: We found a complex interplay between internal and external factors which influence the role and use of evidence in the development of e-cigarette recommendations. For example, recommendation documents' remit (internal factor) was influenced by various external factors such as epidemiology and policy history, with decisions made over time having reshaped the external context. Considering the findings with respect to evidence utilisation, we propose a modified version of Dobrow et al.'s (2004) framework, highlighting the important interplay between internal and external contextual factors. Discussion and conclusion: This research suggest internal and external contextual factors mutually interact and influence how evidence is incorporated into recommendations. This dynamic interplay of contextual factors may help explain the why different policy approaches are pursued concerning public health topics, particularly e-cigarettes.

Whose rights deserve protection? Framing analysis of responses to the 2016 Committee of Advertising Practice consultation on the non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children.

Exposure to advertising of food and beverages high in fat sugar and salt (HFSS) is considered a factor in the development of childhood obesity. This paper uses framing analysis to examine the strategic discursive practices employed by non-industry and industry responders to the Committee of Advertising Practice's consultation responses (n = 86) on UK regulation of non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children. Our analysis demonstrates non-industry and industry responders engaged in a moral framing battle centred on whose rights were deemed as being of greatest importance to protect: children or industry. Both industry and non-industry responders acknowledged that childhood obesity and non-broadcast advertising were complex issues but diverged on how they morally framed their arguments. Non-industry responders employed a moral framework that aligned with the values represented in social justice approaches to public health policy, where children were identified as vulnerable, in need of protection from harmful HFSS product advertising and childhood obesity was a societal problem to solve. In contrast, industry responders emphasised industry rights, portraying themselves as a responsible industry that is victim to perceived disproportionate policymaking, and values more closely aligned with a market justice approach to public health policy. Our analysis provides detailed insights into the framing strategies used in the policy debate surrounding the non-broadcast advertising of HFSS foods to children. This has relevance as to how advocacy organisations can develop counter-framing to industry frames which seek to limit effective regulation.

The contribution of risk factors to socioeconomic inequalities in multimorbidity across the lifecourse: a longitudinal analysis of the Twenty-07 cohort.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is a major challenge to health systems globally and disproportionately affects socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. We examined socioeconomic inequalities in developing multimorbidity across the lifecourse and investigated the contribution of five behaviour-related risk factors. METHODS: The Twenty-07 study recruited participants aged approximately 15, 35, and 55 years in 1987 and followed them up over 20 years. The primary outcome was development of multimorbidity (2+ health conditions). The relationship between five different risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, body mass index (BMI), physical activity) and the development of multimorbidity was assessed. Social patterning in the development of multimorbidity based on two measures of socioeconomic status (area-based deprivation and household income) was then determined, followed by investigation of potential mediation by the five risk factors. Multilevel logistic regression models and predictive margins were used for statistical analyses. Socioeconomic inequalities in multimorbidity were quantified using relative indices of inequality and attenuation assessed through addition of risk factors. RESULTS: Multimorbidity prevalence increased markedly in all cohorts over the 20 years. Socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with increased risk of developing multimorbidity (most vs least deprived areas: odds ratio (OR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-1.68), and the risk was at least as great when assessed by income (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.25-1.87) or when defining multimorbidity as 3+ conditions. Smoking (current vs never OR 1.56, 1.36-1.78), diet (no fruit/vegetable consumption in previous week vs consumption every day OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.33-1.84), and BMI (morbidly obese vs healthy weight OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.42-2.49) were strong independent predictors of developing multimorbidity. A dose-response relationship was observed with number of risk factors and subsequent multimorbidity (3+ risk factors vs none OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.57-2.33). However, the five risk factors combined explained only 40.8% of socioeconomic inequalities in multimorbidity development. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive measures addressing known risk factors, particularly obesity and smoking, could reduce the future multimorbidity burden. However, major socioeconomic inequalities in the development of multimorbidity exist even after taking account of known risk factors. Tackling social determinants of health, including holistic health and social care, is necessary if the rising burden of multimorbidity in disadvantaged populations is to be redressed.

Introducing the revised framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: A challenge and a resource for nursing research.

This invited discussion paper highlights key updates in the MRC/NIHR's revised framework for the development and evaluation of complex nursing interventions and reflects on the implications for nursing research.

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance.

The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

Why do those out of work because of sickness or disability have a high mortality risk? Evidence from a Scottish cohort.

BACKGROUND: Existing evidence on the association between being out of work because of sickness or disability and high mortality risk suggests that most of the association cannot be explained by controlling for health, health behaviour or socio-economic position. However, studies are often based on administrative data that lack explanatory factors. Here, we investigate this high mortality risk using detailed information from a cohort study. METHODS: Data from the West of Scotland Twenty-07 prospective cohort study were used to follow those (average age 56 years) employed, unemployed and out of work in 1988 to death or end of follow-up in 2011. Using a parametric survival model, mean survival was calculated for each employment group after adjustment for health behaviours, health and socio-economic position. RESULTS: The difference in survival between those sick or disabled (30% survival at end of follow-up), and those unemployed (49%) or employed (61%) was mostly accounted for by adjusting for the higher levels of poor heath at baseline in the former group (49, 46 and 56%, respectively, after adjustment). After controlling for all variables, the difference between those sick or disabled (51%) and those employed (56%) was further attenuated slightly. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the present health of those out of work and sick or disabled should be taken seriously, as their long-term survival prospects are considerably poorer than other employment groups.

Children's, parents' and professional stakeholders' views on power concerning the regulation of online advertising of unhealthy food to young people in the UK: A qualitative study.

Examinations of corporate power have demonstrated the practices and activities Unhealthy Commodity Industries (UCIs) employ to exert their power and influence on the public and health policy. The High in Fat Sugar and Salt (HFSS) product industry have exploited the online environment to market their products to young people. Regulating UCIs' marketing can limit the power of those industries and is argued to be one of the most appropriate policy responses to such marketing. However, there is minimal consideration of how stakeholders view regulation of online advertising of HFSS products to young people. This UK-focused study addressed this through a secondary analysis of focus groups with young people (n = 15), the primary analysis of focus groups with parents (n = 8), and interviews with professional stakeholders (n = 11). The findings indicated that participants' views on the regulation of online advertising of HFSS products were informed by how professional stakeholders exerted instrumental, structural and discursive power. Participants cited regulation as a means to re-negotiate problematic power dynamics to increase young people's and parents' autonomy over young people's diets, yet concern remained as to the impact regulation may have on individual autonomy. To garner increased public support for such regulatory policies, it may be beneficial for advocates to emphasise the empowering elements of those regulatory policies. Advocacy actors may wish to shift their framing of regulation from one that focuses on restricting industry practices, to one that centres on empowering individuals.

Development processes for e-cigarette public health recommendations lacked transparency in managing conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how guideline development groups collect and manage conflicts of interest (COI) when producing electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Public health bodies that had produced e-cigarette recommendations were identified from four purposively selected jurisdictions (World Health Organization, United Kingdom, Australia, and United States). We analysed their COI policies and conducted 15 interviews with guideline methodologists, policymakers, and academics in guideline development groups. RESULTS: Only five of 10 public health bodies had a publicly available COI policy. Participants discussed the importance of those involved in the development process declaring COI. However, there were differences in who had to report COI, the time period asked about, and what and how declarations are made. COI policies and participants discussed a range of approaches for managing COI, from limiting involvement to disqualification from the recommendation development process. Participants considered the current processes for collecting and managing COI insufficient due to their open interpretation and possibility for partial declarations of interest. CONCLUSION: The management of COI varies across public health bodies, with little standardization and lack of transparency. To improve the collection and management of COI, and ultimately increase the trustworthiness of recommendations, guideline development groups should draw upon a comprehensive and accessible COI policy.

COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on social relationships and health.

This essay examines key aspects of social relationships that were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It focuses explicitly on relational mechanisms of health and brings together theory and emerging evidence on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to make recommendations for future public health policy and recovery. We first provide an overview of the pandemic in the UK context, outlining the nature of the public health response. We then introduce four distinct domains of social relationships: social networks, social support, social interaction and intimacy, highlighting the mechanisms through which the pandemic and associated public health response drastically altered social interactions in each domain. Throughout the essay, the lens of health inequalities, and perspective of relationships as interconnecting elements in a broader system, is used to explore the varying impact of these disruptions. The essay concludes by providing recommendations for longer term recovery ensuring that the social relational cost of COVID-19 is adequately considered in efforts to rebuild.

Examining the sources of evidence in e-cigarette policy recommendations: A citation network analysis of international public health recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Public health policies and recommendations aim to be informed by the best available evidence. Evidence underpinning e-cigarettes policy recommendations has been necessarily limited due to the novelty of the technology and the lack of long-term epidemiological studies and trials. Some public health bodies have actively encouraged e-cigarette use whilst others have raised concerns over introducing new health risks and renormalising tobacco smoking. Using citation network analysis we investigated the author conflicts of interest and study funding statements within sources of evidence used by public health bodies when making recommendations about e-cigarette policy. METHODS: We conducted citation network analysis of public health recommendation documents across four purposively selected diverse jurisdictions: WHO, UK, Australia, and USA. We extracted all citations from 15 public health recommendation documents, with more detailed data collected for influential citations (used in 3+ recommendation documents). We analysed the relationships between the sources of evidence used across jurisdictions using block modelling to determine if similar groups of documents were used across different jurisdictions. We assessed the frequency and nature of conflicts of interest. RESULTS: 1700 unique citations were included across the 15 public health recommendation documents, with zero to 923 citations per document (median = 63, IQR = 7.5-132). The evidence base underpinning public health recommendations did not systematically differ across jurisdictions. Of the 1700 citations included, the majority were journal articles (n = 1179). Across 1081 journal articles published between 1998-2018, 200 declared a conflict of interest, 288 contained no mention of conflicts of interest, and 593 declared none. Conflicts of interest were reported with tobacco (3%; n = 37 journal articles of 1081), e-cigarette (7%; n = 72), and pharmaceutical companies (12%; n = 127), with such conflicts present even in the most recent years. There were 53 influential citations, the most common study type was basic science research without human subjects (e.g. examination of aerosols and e-liquids) (n = 18) followed by systematic review (n = 10); with randomised control trial being least common (n = 4). Network analysis identified clusters of highly-cited articles with a higher prevalence of conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: Public health bodies across different jurisdictions drew upon similar sources of evidence, despite articulating different policy approaches to e-cigarettes. The evidence drawn upon, including the most influential evidence, contained substantial conflicts of interest (including relationships with e-cigarette and tobacco industries). Processes to explicitly manage conflicts of interest arising from the underlying evidence base may be required when developing public health recommendations.

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.

BACKGROUND: The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. METHODS: There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments. RESULTS: Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout. LIMITATIONS: The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development. CONCLUSIONS: This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers. FUTURE WORK: We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources. FUNDING: This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Interventions are actions taken to make a change, for example heart surgery, an exercise programme or a smoking ban in public. Interventions are described as complex if they comprise several stages or parts or if the context in which they are delivered is complex. A framework on how to develop and evaluate complex interventions was last published by the Medical Research Council in 2006 (Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. London: Medical Research Council; 2006). This document describes how the framework has been updated to include advances in research methods and thinking and presents the new framework document. The updating process had four stages: (1) review of the literature to identify areas requiring update; (2) workshop of experts to discuss topics to update; (3) open consultation on a draft of the framework; and (4) writing the framework. The updated framework divides the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. Key updates include: the definition of a complex intervention was changed to include both the content of the intervention and the context in which it is conductedaddition of systems thinking methods: an approach that considers the broader system an intervention sits withinmore emphasis on interventions that are not developed by researchers (e.g. policy changes and health services delivery)emphasis on the usefulness of evidence as the key goal of complex intervention researchidentification of six elements to be addressed throughout the research process: context; theory refinement and testing; stakeholder involvement; identification of key uncertainties; intervention refinement; and economic considerations. The updated framework is intended to help those involved in funding and designing research to consider a range of approaches, questions and methods and to choose the most appropriate. It also aims to help researchers conduct and report research that is as useful as possible to users of research.

Challenges in evaluating Welfare to Work policy interventions: would an RCT design have been the answer to all our problems?

BACKGROUND: UK policy direction for recipients of unemployment and sickness benefits is to support these people into employment by increasing 'into work' interventions. Although the main aim of associated interventions is to increase levels of employment, improved health is stated as a benefit, and a driver of these interventions. This is therefore a potentially important policy intervention with respect to health and health inequalities, and needs to be validated through rigorous impact evaluation.We attempted to evaluate the Pathways Advisory Service intervention which aims to provide employment support for Incapacity Benefit recipients, but encountered a number of challenges and barriers to evaluation. This paper explores the issues that arose in designing a suitable evaluation of the Pathways Advisory Service. DISCUSSION: The main issues that arose were that characteristics of the intervention lead to difficulties in defining a suitable comparison group; and governance restrictions such as uncertainty regarding ethical consent processes and data sharing between agencies for research. Some of these challenges threatened fundamentally to limit the validity of any experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation we could design - restricting recruitment, data collection and identification of an appropriate comparison group. Although a cluster randomised controlled trial design was ethically justified to evaluate the Pathways Advisory Service, this was not possible because the intervention was already being widely implemented. However, this would not have solved other barriers to evaluation. There is no obvious method to perform a controlled evaluation for interventions where only a small proportion of those eligible are exposed. Improved communication between policymakers and researchers, clarification of data sharing protocols and improved guidelines for ethics committees are tangible ways which may reduce the current obstacles to this and other similar evaluations of policy interventions which tackle key determinants of health. SUMMARY: The evaluation of social interventions is hampered by more than their suitability to randomisation. Data sharing, participant identification and recruitment problems are common to randomised and non-randomised evaluation designs. These issues require further attention if we are to learn from current social policy.

"The state They're in": Unpicking fantasy paradigms of health improvement interventions as tools for addressing health inequalities.

Globally, it is recognised that the fundamental causes of iniquitous health outcomes lie within unequal distributions of wealth and power. Internationally, however, policies and interventions persist in individualising the inequalities problem and targeting individual behaviours as the main solution. This approach has been argued to represent 'Fantasy Paradigms'. This paper explores one example of such 'Fantasy' intervention from the perspective of health practitioners. Further, it explores opportunities for deepening practitioner understandings of the socio-political determination of health. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 47 professionals involved in delivering a social prescribing programme in poor areas of Glasgow, Scotland. Data were analysed thematically across and within transcripts. Narratives highlighted different explanatory types concerning how the intervention could tackle health inequalities including: firm commitment to individualised approaches; hopeful pessimism; the social-determinants-of-health as an unpoliticised and nondeterministic backdrop to poor health; and finally, incomplete understanding of the social gradient as a population concept. Disrupted narratives of the social determination of health were also evident. This paper contributes new insights to existing debates on health inequalities discourse. These are conceptually important and identify opportunities for sharpening practitioner understanding of the social determinants of health which could in turn contribute to better, non-stigmatising primary care. It argues that re-engaging communities of practice with what is meant by determination of health is necessary and that there is a need to de-couple the policy aim of reducing health inequalities from the delivery of structurally competent and equality-focused public services.

Delivering a primary care-based social prescribing initiative: a qualitative study of the benefits and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing is a collaborative approach to improve inter-sectoral working between primary health care and community organisations. The Links Worker Programme (LWP) is a social prescribing initiative in areas of high deprivation in Glasgow, Scotland, that is designed to mitigate the negative impacts of the social determinants of health. AIM: To investigate issues relevant to implementing a social prescribing programme to improve inter-sectoral working to achieve public health goals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study with community organisation representatives and community links practitioners (CLPs) in LWP areas. METHOD: Audiorecordings of semi-structured interviews with 30 community organisation representatives and six CLPs were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants identified some benefits of collaborative working, particularly the CLPs' ability to act as a case manager for patients, and their position in GP practices, which operated as a bridge between organisations. However, benefits were seen to flow from new relationships between individuals in community organisations and CLPs, rather than more generally with the practice as a whole. Challenges to the LWP were related to capacity and funding for community organisations in the context of austerity. The capacity of CLPs was also an issue given that their role involved time-consuming, intensive case management. CONCLUSION: Although the LWP appears to be a fruitful approach to collaborative case management, integration initiatives such as social prescribing cannot be seen as 'magic bullets'. In the context of economic austerity, such approaches may not achieve their potential unless funding is available for community organisations to continue to provide services and make and maintain their links with primary care.

Implementation of a disability management policy in a large healthcare employer: a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the process and outcomes of the implementation of a strengthened disability management policy in a large Canadian healthcare employer. Key elements of the strengthened policy included an emphasis on early contact, the training of supervisors and the integration of union representatives in return-to-work (RTW) planning. DESIGN: The study applied mixed methods, combining a process evaluation within the employer and a quasi-experimental outcome evaluation between employers for a 3-year period prior to and following policy implementation in January 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Staff in the implementation organisation (n=4000) and staff in a peer group of 29 large hospitals (n=1 19 000). OUTCOMES: Work disability episode incidence and duration. RESULTS: Both qualitative and quantitative measures of the implementation process were predominantly positive. Over the 6-year observation period, there were 624 work disability episodes in the organisation and 8604 in the comparison group of 29 large hospitals. The annual per cent change in episode incidence in the organisation was -5.6 (95% CI -9.9 to -1.1) comparable to the annual per cent change in the comparison group: -6.2 (-7.2 to -5.3). Disability episode durations also declined in the organisation, from a mean of 19.4 days (16.5, 22.3) in the preintervention period to 10.9 days (8.7, 13.2) in the postintervention period. Reductions in disability durations were also observed in the comparison group: from a mean of 13.5 days (12.9, 14.1) in the 2009-2011 period to 10.5 days (9.9, 11.1) in the 2012-2014 period. CONCLUSION: The incidence of work disability episodes and the durations of work disability declined strongly in this hospital sector over the 6-year observation period. The implementation of the organisation's RTW policy was associated with larger reductions in disability durations than observed in the comparison group.

Implementing a collaborative return-to-work program: Lessons from a qualitative study in a large Canadian healthcare organization.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive workplace return-to-work policies, applied with consistency, can reduce length of time out of work and the risk of long-term disability. This paper reports on the findings from a qualitative study exploring managers' and return-to-work-coordinators' views on the implementation of their organization's new return-to-work program. OBJECTIVES: To provide practical guidance to organizations in designing and implementing return-to-work programs for their employees. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken with 20 managers and 10 return-to-work co-ordinators to describe participants' perspectives on the progress of program implementation in the first 18 months of adoption. The study was based in a large healthcare organization in Ontario, Canada. Thematic analysis of the data was conducted. RESULTS: We identified tensions evident in the early implementation phase of the organization's return-to-work program. These tensions were attributed to uncertainties concerning roles and responsibilities and to circumstances where objectives or principles appeared to be in conflict. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a comprehensive and collaborative return-to-work program is a complex challenge. The findings described in this paper may provide helpful guidance for organizations embarking on the development and implementation of a return-to-work program.