A qualitative study into the perspectives of clients on shared decision-making as a method to support return to work.

BACKGROUND: Being able to participate in work is an important determinant of health. Therefore, reintegration professionals provide support to clients to return to work (RTW). Since RTW has a significant impact on a client's life, it is preferred that clients are involved in the decision-making process of RTW. A method to do so, is shared decision-making (SDM), involving the following steps: collaborating as a team, explaining to clients that they can be part of the decision-making process, setting a shared goal, presenting and discussing choice options, and making a shared decision. OBJECTIVE: We explored how clients experience and prefer these SDM steps in their current and ideal interaction with professionals. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with fourteen clients receiving support in their RTW process from four different municipalities. RESULTS: Clients emphasised the importance of collaborating as team. None of the clients reported having been told that they could be part of the decision-making process, or discussed a shared goal with a professional, which they would prefer. Some clients were presented choice options. When choice options were discussed, frequently only the negative aspects of choice options were explained by the professional. A great number of clients experienced that shared decisions were made, but based this on the shared effort made by the client and professional to RTW. CONCLUSIONS: Clients generally wish to cooperate and participate in the decision-making process, but their ability to do so is limited due to not being fully involved in the SDM steps.

How to facilitate guideline use? A bottom-up qualitative approach developing a training programme for professionals involved in work participation of people with a chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: A guideline for occupational health professionals (OHPs) is developed which provides them with knowledge and skills to optimize their guidance to people with a chronic disease. OBJECTIVE: Developing a training programme to acquire and apply knowledge and skills provided by the guideline, through a bottom-up approach. METHODS: First, OHPs training needs were explored using focus groups. Second, learning objectives were formulated by the researchers. Third, experts in the field of education were interviewed to explore relevant training activities. Fourth, researchers integrated all the results into a training programme. RESULTS: Based on the training needs identified, we formulated 17 learning objectives, e.g. being able to name influential factors and effective interventions, increase the individual client's role, and increase communication with a professionals to enhance work participation of people with a chronic disease. The training activities identified by experts for OHPs to acquire and apply knowledge and skills were: a case study, role play, discussion of best practices and interviewing stakeholders. These were all performed in plenary sessions or small groups. CONCLUSIONS: Training needs, -activities and learning objectives were integrated into a six-hour training programme. This bottom-up approach can serve as input for others developing training programmes to transfer knowledge and skills to OHPs.

Shared decision making from reintegration professionals' perspectives to support return to work: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Work participation is an important determinant of public health; being unemployed leads to a decrease in an individual's health. In the Netherlands, people with a work disability can apply for disability benefits, in which people also receive support to return to work (RTW). A method, currently used in the medical sector, that can include both the perspective of the reintegration professional and of the individual in the process of RTW, is shared decision making (SDM). In this article we explore to what extent reintegration professionals currently use SDM, and to what extent they prefer to use SDM in their ideal interaction with clients. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with fourteen reintegration professionals from four different municipalities. The transcripts were coded according to content analysis, applying open and axial coding. RESULTS: Reintegration professionals emphasised the importance of having a good relationship with clients, of building trust and collaborating as a team. They did not inform their clients that they could be part of the decision-making process, or discussed a shared goal. Although professionals did emphasise the importance of aligning their approach with the preferences of the client and though they tried to offer some choice options, they did not mention available options, discussed the pros and cons of these options or evaluated decisions with their clients. Furthermore, they did not mention any of these aspects in their ideal interaction with clients. CONCLUSIONS: SDM has a potential value, because all professionals underline the importance of having an alliance with clients, collaborating as a team, and striving to align their approach with the preferences of the client. However, professionals currently perform a limited set of SDM steps. Additional knowledge and skills are needed for both reintegration professionals and municipalities so that professionals can consider and reflect on the value of using SDM, or SDM steps, in supporting RTW. Providing clients with knowledge and skills seems necessary to facilitate both self-management and SDM.

A training programme facilitating guideline use of occupational health professionals: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether a training programme is a feasible approach to facilitate occupational health professionals' (OHPs) use of knowledge and skills provided by a guideline. METHODS: Feasibility was evaluated by researching three aspects: 'acceptability', 'implementation' and 'limited efficacy'. Statements on acceptability and implementation were rated by OHPs on 10-point visual analogue scales after following the training programme (T2). Answers were analysed using descriptive statistics. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were explored through open-ended questions at T2, which were qualitatively analysed. Limited efficacy was evaluated by measuring the level of knowledge and skills at baseline (T0), after reading the guideline (T1) and directly after completing the training programme (T2). Increase in knowledge and skills was analysed using a non-paramatric Friedman test and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank tests (two-tailed). RESULTS: The 38 OHPs found the training programme acceptable, judging that it was relevant (M: 8, SD: 1), increased their capability (M: 7, SD: 1), adhered to their daily practice (M: 8, SD: 1) and enhanced their guidance and assessment of people with a chronic disease (M: 8, SD: 1). OHPs found that it was feasible to implement the programme on a larger scale (M: 7, SD: 1) but foresaw barriers such as 'time', 'money' and organizational constraints. The reported facilitators were primarily related to the added value of the knowledge and skills to the OHPs' guidance and assessment, and that the programme taught them to apply the evidence in practice. Regarding limited efficacy, a significant increase was seen in OHPs' knowledge and skills over time (X2 (2) = 53.656, p < 0.001), with the median score improving from 6.3 (T0), 8.3 (T1) and 12.3 (T2). Post-hoc tests indicated a significant improvement between T0 and T1 (p < 0.001) and between T1 and T2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The training programme was found to be a feasible approach to facilitate OHPs' use of knowledge and skills provided by the guideline, from the perspective of OHPs generally (acceptability and implementation) and with respect to their increase in knowledge and skills in particular (limited efficacy).

Perspectives of People with a Chronic Disease on Participating in Work: A Focus Group Study.

Purpose To explore solutions that people with a chronic disease use to overcome difficulties they experience regarding participating in work, and the support they require to identify or implement these solutions. Methods Focus groups were held to explore solutions and support requirements of people with a chronic disease. Participants were recruited through a research institution's patient panel, a patient federation and personal networks. Analysis was conducted by means of open and selective coding, using the MAXQDA software package. Results Five focus groups were held with 19 participants with different chronic diseases. Solutions that were identified included learning to accept and cope with the disease, which is frequently supported by family and friends. Disclosing the disease to employers and colleagues, identifying active ways to help with duties, and implementing adaptations to the work environment were all effective solutions with the help, empathy and understanding of people in the work environment. Solutions mostly supported by patient associations included providing sufficient information about the disease, relevant help and protective legal regulations regarding work participation. Finally, health professionals could support solutions such as incorporating periods of rest, promoting self-efficacy and gaining insight into an individual's ability to participate in work. Conclusions People with a chronic disease suggested various solutions that can help overcome difficulties surrounding participating in work. Support from friends and family, patient associations, employers, colleagues and occupational health professionals is needed to help identify and implement suitable solutions.

Interventions to enhance work participation of workers with a chronic disease: a systematic review of reviews.

The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the available effective interventions that enhance work participation of people with a chronic disease, irrespective of their diagnosis. A search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, searching for systematic reviews published between 2004 and February 2015. Systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion if they described an intervention aimed at enhancing work participation and included participants of working age (18-65 years) with a chronic disease. Reviews had to include populations having different chronic diseases. The quality of the included reviews was evaluated using the quality instrument AMSTAR. Results of reviews of medium and high quality were described in this review. The search resulted in 9 reviews, 5 of which were of medium quality. No high quality reviews were retrieved. 1 review reported inconclusive evidence for policy-based return to work initiatives. The 4 other reviews described interventions focused on changes at work, such as changes in work organisation, working conditions and work environment. Of these 4 reviews, 3 reported beneficial effects of the intervention on work participation. Interventions examined in populations having different chronic diseases were mainly focused on changes at work. The majority of the included interventions were reported to be effective in enhancing work participation of people with a chronic disease, indicating that interventions directed at work could be considered for a generic approach in order to enhance work participation in various chronic diseases.

Disease-generic factors of work participation of workers with a chronic disease: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to search systematically for disease-generic factors associated with either work retention (WR) or return to work (RTW) in people of working age with a chronic disease. METHODS: An extensive search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for English-, Dutch- and German-language studies searching on synonyms of the terms chronic disease, WR and RTW. Studies were selected if they described factors related to WR or RTW and included participants with a chronic disease of working age (15-67 years old). RESULTS: From 2597 hits in the electronic databases, we identified six studies reporting 23 factors associated with work participation. Categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, health-related factors (comorbidity, duration of symptoms and less dysfunction), environmental factors (work environment and duration of absence) and personal factors (age, gender, education and own prediction of RTW) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Various disease-generic factors are associated with work participation, of which most of the reported factors are independent of diagnosis. Evidence of the retrieved factors is restricted due to the limited availability of studies focusing on disease-generic factors and overall low quality of the retrieved studies.