Predictors of time until return to work and duration of sickness absence in sick-listed precarious workers with common mental disorders: a secondary data-analysis of two trials and one cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders (CMD) are highly prevalent among sick-listed precarious workers and often lead to long-term sickness-absence, work disability and unemployment. This study aimed to identify predictors of a longer time until return to work (RTW) and prolonged duration of sickness absence in sick-listed precarious workers with CMD. METHODS: We conducted a secondary Cox regression analysis using existing data from two Dutch randomized controlled trials and one cohort study among sick-listed precarious workers with CMD (N = 681). Age, gender, baseline employment status, study allocation, severity of psychological symptoms and RTW self-efficacy were evaluated for their predictive value on time until sustainable (≥ 28 days) RTW and duration of sickness absence during 12-month follow-up. In this study, time until sustainable RTW and duration of sickness absence are distinct dependent variables, because they are not mutually exclusive. RESULTS: Age above 50 years (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-0.82), severe psychological symptoms (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.93), unemployment (HR 0.19 95% CI 0.11-0.33) and loss of employment contract during sickness absence (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14-0.47) were predictive of a longer time until RTW. Male gender (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.97), severe psychological symptoms (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46-0.87), unemployment (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.84) and loss of employment contract (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.90) predicted a prolonged duration of sickness absence. CONCLUSIONS: Unemployment at the moment of sick-listing, loss of employment contract during sickness absence, and severe psychological symptoms are predictors of both a longer time until RTW and prolonged duration of sickness absence among sick-listed precarious workers with CMD. This knowledge assists occupational health and mental health professionals in the early identification of workers at risk of long-term sickness absence, enabling them to arrange targeted occupational rehabilitation support and mental health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The included randomized controlled trials were prospectively registered in the Dutch national trial register under NTR4190 (September 27, 2013) and NTR3563 (August 7, 2012).

Designing an evidence-based working method for medical work disability prognosis evaluation-an intervention mapping approach.

Purpose: Performing evidence-based work disability prognosis evaluation (WDPE) of clients on sick leave is a difficult task for physicians. The aim was to develop a working method to support physicians in performing evidence-based WDPE and to improve WDPE quality. Materials and methods: Intervention Mapping (IM) supplemented with elements of the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) guided project planning for developing the working method. This approach allowed combination with other frameworks and, e.g., behavior change theories. WDPE quality challenges were analyzed on various ecological levels, e.g., the individual (i.e., the physician), interpersonal (i.e., the client) and organizational level, culminating into a multilevel logic model of the problem. Determinants that contributed to this problem, e.g., lack of physicians' knowledge on performing evidence-based WDPE, were identified. Performance objectives were formulated that could contribute to a desired change in WDPE quality. From the performance objectives and determinants (e.g., knowledge), change objectives were derived. In order to achieve these change objectives, suitable intervention functions (e.g., education) and policy categories (e.g., service provision) were identified, allowing the formulation of intervention components. Behavior change techniques (e.g., feedback on outcomes of a behavior) were selected to serve the intervention functions to deliver the desired change. This led to the conceptualization of an intervention plan. Results: The intervention "Prognosable" is presented. It consists of a stepwise working method (SWM) for evidence-based WDPE. The SWM offers an overview of important aspects (e.g., medical condition, clients' confidence in return-to-work) to consider in individual clients' WDPE. The SWM helps physicians to identify crucial functional limitations, find and appraise evidence-based information, weigh all relevant prognostic aspects and it supports physicians to conclude with an evidence-based WDPE, tailored to the individual client. The intervention "Prognosable" was designed, which also includes an educational program and a supportive software tool to enable implementation of the SWM. Conclusion: IM combined with BCW elements guided the development of a SWM for evidence-based WDPE. The SWM will be delivered through an educational program for physicians supported by a digital tool. The SWM, educational program and digital tool are ready to be implemented and evaluated in practice as the intervention "Prognosable."

The perceived importance of prognostic aspects considered by physicians during work disability evaluation: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Assessing prognosis is challenging for many physicians in various medical fields. Research shows that physicians who perform disability assessments consider six areas when evaluating a prognosis: disease, treatment, course of the disease, external information, patient-related and physician-related aspects. We administered a questionnaire to evaluate how physicians rate the importance of these six prognosis areas during work disability evaluation and to explore what kind of support they would like during prognosis assessment. METHODS: Seventy-six physicians scored the importance of 23 prognostic aspects distributed over six prognosis areas. Participants scored the importance of each aspect both "in general" and from the perspective of a case vignette of a worker with a severe degenerative disease. The questionnaire also covered needs and suggestions for support during the evaluation of prognoses. RESULTS: Medical areas that are related to the disease, or the treatment or course of the disease, appeared important (scores of 7.0-9.0), with less differing opinions among participants (IQR 1.0-3.0). Corresponding verbatim remarks supported the importance of disease and treatment as prognostic aspects. In comparison, patient- and physician-related aspects scored somewhat lower, with more variability (range 4.0-8.0, with IQR 2.0-5.0 for patient- and physician-related considerations). Participants indicated a need for a tool or online database that includes prognostic aspects and prognostic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some variation in scores, the physicians rated all six prognosis areas as important for work disability evaluations. This study provides suggested aids to prognosis assessment, including an online support tool based on evidence-based medicine features.

Long-term employment status and quality of life after cancer: A longitudinal prospective cohort study from diagnosis up to and including 5 years post diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that cancer survivors are able to return to work. However, little is known about their work situation 5 years after diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To explore fluctuations in employment status and its association with quality of life 2, 3, and 5 years after cancer diagnosis of 65 cancer survivors employed at diagnosis. METHODS: In association with a randomised controlled trial (RCT), questionnaires were administrated to eligible cancer survivors at diagnosis, 2, 3, and 5 years thereafter comprising of validated questionnaires related to work (i.e. Work Ability Index (WAI), cancer, and quality of life (QOL) (i.e. SF-36, VAS QOL). The RCT studied a hospital-based work support intervention in female breast and gynaecological cancer survivors who were treated with curative intent and had paid work at diagnosis. Descriptive statistics and longitudinal multi-level analysis were employed. RESULTS: Sixty-five of the 102 eligible cancer survivors participated, who were primarily diagnosed with breast cancer (63%). Two and 5 years after cancer diagnosis respectively 63 (97%) and 48 (81%) participants were employed. Reasons for not being employed after 5 years included receiving unemployment benefits (7%), voluntary unemployment (3%), receiving disability benefits (3%), and early retirement (3%). Longitudinal multi-level analysis showed that employed cancer survivors reported in general statistically significant better quality of life outcomes at 5 years follow-up compared to those not being employed. CONCLUSIONS: We found high employment rates and few fluctuations in employment status. The steepest decline in employment rate occurs after the first two years of diagnosis. Employed participants reported better quality of life outcomes. Survivorship care should therefore focus on the population at risk possibly within the first two years after diagnosis.