Preventing sickness absenteeism among employees with common mental disorders or stress-related symptoms at work: Design of a cluster randomized controlled trial of a problem-solving based intervention versus care-as-usual conducted at the Occupational Health Services.

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders (CMDs) are among the leading causes of sick leave in Sweden and other OECD countries. They result in suffering for the individual and considerable financial costs for the employer and for society at large. The occupational health service (OHS) can offer interventions in which both the individual and the work situation are taken into account. The aim of this paper is to describe the design of a study evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention given at the OHS to employees with CMDs or stress-related symptoms at work. In addition, intervention fidelity and its relation to the outcome will be assessed in a process analysis. METHODS: The study is designed as a cluster randomized trial in which the participating OHS consultants are randomized into either delivering the intervention or performing care as usual. Employees with CMDs or stress-related symptoms at work are recruited consecutively by the OHS consultants. The intervention aims to improve the match between the employee and the job situation. Interviews are held individually with the employee and the nearest supervisor, after which a joint meeting with both the employee and the supervisor takes place. A participatory approach is applied by which the supervisor and the employee are guided by the OHS consultant and encouraged to actively take part in problem solving concerning the work situation. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at six and 12 months. A long-term follow-up at 3 years will also be performed. The primary outcome is registered sickness absence during a 1-year period after study inclusion. Secondary outcomes are mental health and work ability. The intervention's cost effectiveness, compared to treatment as usual, both for society and for the employer will be evaluated. A process evaluation by both the OHS consultants and the employee will be carried out. DISCUSSION: The study includes analyses of the effectiveness of the intervention (clinical and economic) as well as an analysis of its implementation at the participating OHSs. Possible methodological challenges such as selection bias and risk of contamination between OHS consultants delivering the experimental condition and consultants giving usual care are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials NCT02563743 Sep 28 2015.

Validity and test-retest reliability of an at-work production loss instrument.

BACKGROUND: Besides causing ill health, a poor work environment may contribute to production loss. Production loss assessment instruments emphasize health-related consequences but there is no instrument to measure reduced work performance related to the work environment. AIMS: To examine convergent validity and test-retest reliability of health-related production loss (HRPL) and work environment-related production loss (WRPL) against a valid comparable instrument, the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of employees, not on sick leave, who were asked to self-rate their work performance and production losses. Using the Pearson correlation and Bland and Altman's Test of Agreement, convergent validity was examined. Subgroup analyses were performed for employees recording problem-specific reduced work performance. Consistency of pairs of HRPL and WRPL for samples responding to both assessments was expressed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and tests of repeatability. RESULTS: A total of 88 employees participated and 44 responded to both assessments. Test of agreement between measurements estimates a mean difference of 0.34 for HRPL and -0.03 for WRPL compared with work performance. This indicates that the production loss questions are valid and moderately associated with work performance for the total sample and subgroups. ICC for paired HRPL assessments was 0.90 and 0.91 for WRPL, i.e. the test-retest reliability was good and suggests stability in the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: HRPL and WRPL can be used to measure production loss due to health-related and work environment-related problems. These results may have implications for advancing methods of assessing production loss, which represents an important cost to employers.