Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Mar;22(1):127-40.
doi: 10.1007/s10926-011-9314-4.

A participatory return-to-work program for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders: a process evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

Karlijn M van Beurden  1 , Sylvia J Vermeulen, Johannes R Anema, Allard J van der Beek
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A participatory return-to-work program for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders: a process evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

Karlijn M van Beurden et al. J Occup Rehabil. 2012 Mar.

Abstract

Introduction: Beside (cost-)effectiveness, the feasibility of an intervention is important for successful implementation in daily practice. This study concerns the process evaluation of a newly developed participatory return-to-work (RTW) program for workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders. The program consisted of a stepwise process, guided by an independent RTW coordinator, aimed at making a consensus-based RTW plan with the possibility of a temporary (therapeutic) workplace. The aims of this study were to describe the reach and extent of implementation of the new program, the satisfaction and experiences of all stakeholders, and the perceived barriers and facilitators for implementation of the program in daily practice.

Methods: Temporary agency workers and unemployed workers, sick-listed for 2-8 weeks due to musculoskeletal disorders were eligible for this study. Data were collected from the workers; their insurance physicians and labour experts at the Dutch Social Security Agency; RTW coordinators; and case managers from participating vocational rehabilitation agencies. Data collection took place using professionals' reports, standardized matrices, questionnaires at baseline and at 3-month follow-up, and group interviews with the professionals.

Results: Of the 79 workers who were allocated to the participatory RTW program group, 72 workers actually started with the intervention. Overall, implementation of the program was performed according to protocol. However, offering of suitable temporary workplaces was delayed with 44.5 days. Results showed satisfaction with the RTW coordinator among the workers and three quarters of the labour experts experienced a minor or major contribution of the presence of the RTW coordinator. Several barriers for implementation were identified, such as the administrative time-investment, unclear information about the program, no timely offering of temporary (therapeutic) workplaces, and the need for additional support in case of complex health problems.

Conclusions: This study indicates overall feasibility for implementation of the participatory RTW program in daily practice. However, to overcome important barriers, more attention should be paid to improve timely offering of suitable temporary workplaces, to describe more clearly the program goals and the professional's roles, and to offer additional support for workers suffering from complex multi-causal health problems.

Trial registration: NTR1047.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of sick-listed workers in the STEP-UP study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram of sick-listed workers in the RTW program after allocation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Taken seriously by the RTW coordinator (RTWC) during the meetings from the perspective of the worker (n = 47)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Goldenhar LM, LaMontagne AD, Katz T, Heaney C, Landsbergis P. The intervention research process in occupational safety and health: an overview from the National Occupational Research Agenda Intervention Effectiveness Research team. J Occup Environ Med. 2001;43:616–622. doi: 10.1097/00043764-200107000-00008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39:II46–II54. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200108002-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Young AE, Waisak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR, van Poppel MNM. Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:543–556. doi: 10.1007/s10926-005-8033-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J, RIPPLE study team Process evaluation in randomized controlled trails of complex interventions. Br Med J. 2006;332:413–416. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Oostrom SH, van Mechelen W, Terluin B, de Vet HCW, Anema JR. A participatory workplace intervention for employees with distress and lost time: a feasibility evaluation within a randomized controlled trial. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:212–222. doi: 10.1007/s10926-009-9170-7. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms