Collaboration in the return-to-work process after sick leave due to common mental disorders: a qualitative study of stakeholders' views on goals and roles.

BACKGROUND: This study explores how the goals of collaboration in the return-to-work (RTW) process for people with common mental disorders are described by the stakeholders involved, and how they experience stakeholders' roles and responsibilities in relation to these goals. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 41 participants from three Swedish regions. Nine of the participants were workers, six employer representatives, four occupational health professionals, four social insurance officers, 18 RTW coordinators and five physicians. Thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Three main themes and overarching goals when collaborating on RTW were identified. In the first theme, 'creating an informative environment', all stakeholders emphasised clear roles and responsibilities. The second theme, 'striving for consensus in an environment of negotiations', addressed negotiations about when and how to collaborate, on what and with whom, and reveal different views on stakeholders' goals, roles and responsibilities in collaboration. The third theme identified goals for 'creating a supportive environment' for both workers and other stakeholders. Coordinators are found to have an important role in achieving a supportive environment, and in neutralising power imbalances between workers and their employers and social insurance officers. CONCLUSIONS: Competing goals and priorities were identified as hindering successful collaboration, contributing to a spectrum of complex versus easy RTW collaboration. This study suggests some basic conditions for achieving a collaborative arena that is neutral in terms of power balance, where all stakeholders can share their views.

The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System Intervention to Reduce Employee Work-Related Stress and Enhance Work Performance.

BACKGROUND: The study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMes) intervention to reduce employee work-related stress and enhance work performance. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was used to undertake the evaluation from a business perspective. Objective workload data and stress were gathered repeatedly over a 17-month period (i.e., before and after intervention). Independent t-test and an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis were used in the analysis. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) was calculated as a ratio of the average cost of the intervention and the effect sizes of the different outcomes to reflect the average cost per clinician for each unit change in outcome. RESULTS: Based on the results of the ITS analysis, an expenditure of EUR 41,487 was linked with no change in stress levels, according to the ACER for stress. In addition, the expenditures associated with each unit change were EUR 3319 for overall tasks per hour worked, EUR 2761 for visits per hour worked, EUR 2880 for administrative tasks, but EUR 9123 for answering phone calls. CONCLUSIONS: ProMes is not cost-effective in terms of work-related stress levels, but the intervention seemed to have increased efficiency in some objective work performance measures, albeit at a relatively high extra cost.