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
. 2025 May 7.
doi: 10.1007/s10926-025-10295-2. Online ahead of print.

Bridging the Gap Between Rehabilitation and Return to Work: A Qualitative Evaluation of a Workplace Intervention for Low Back Pain

Lisa Bernaers  1   2 , Tine Marieke Willems  3 , Dorina Rusu  4 , Christophe Demoulin  4   5 , Dominique Van de Velde  3 , Lutgart Braeckman  6
Affiliations
Free article

Bridging the Gap Between Rehabilitation and Return to Work: A Qualitative Evaluation of a Workplace Intervention for Low Back Pain

Lisa Bernaers et al. J Occup Rehabil. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: Low back pain (LBP) can lead to disability and sick leave, impacting work participation and overall health. Given the complex and multifactorial nature of LBP, Belgium's Federal Agency for Occupational Risks (FEDRIS) promotes a secondary prevention strategy for LBP among workers engaged in ergonomically demanding tasks. This strategy includes multidisciplinary-based rehabilitation and an optional workplace intervention (WPI), initiated upon employer request. The WPI component consists of a half-day ergonomic risk analysis at the workplace conducted by an external occupational health service. This paper is one of two parallel qualitative studies that explored the experiences and perspectives of employees and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the secondary prevention program. The current study focuses on the optional WPI, aiming to identify its strengths, challenges, and potential solutions.

Methods: Between April 2022 and April 2023, six multicenter semistructured focus groups were held with 15 employees (2015-2019 program participants) and 24 HCPs (including external ergonomists) recruited from 11 Belgian rehabilitation centers and hospitals. Sessions were organized as employee-only, HCP-only, or mixed groups. All the interviews were anonymized, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed inductively via thematic analysis, with validation through data triangulation, intercoder checks, and participant feedback.

Results: The analysis reveals strengths, challenges, and solutions associated with the WPI before, during, and after implementation. Before the intervention, some HCPs recognized the WPIs' benefits, but limited awareness, employer hesitancy, practicality concerns, and job security fears presumably contributed to low application rates. The proposed solutions include proactive communication, streamlined processes, and enhanced employer engagement. During implementation, strengths included improved employee engagement and interdisciplinary collaboration, but challenges related to limited integration and timing affected effectiveness. Early ergonomic assessments and better communication are suggested. After the intervention, inconsistent feedback hindered sustainability, highlighting the need for systematic follow-up and stronger organizational commitment.

Conclusions: The WPI provides some tangible benefits for sustainable return to work in Belgium's secondary prevention strategy for LBP, yet a few gaps remain. Low employer awareness, application hesitancy, and inconsistent follow-up hinder effective implementation. Equally, interdisciplinary collaboration and proactive ergonomic assessments are considered strengths of the WPI. Involving all key stakeholders emerges as critical for addressing practical concerns and ensuring ongoing support. Future refinements should prioritize streamlined processes, early-stage interventions, and consistent feedback.

Keywords: Ergonomic intervention; Focus groups; Low back pain; Qualitative research; Return to work; Secondary prevention; Vocational rehabilitation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical Approval: All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. The independent Ethical Committee of the Ghent University Hospital granted approval on the 28th of February 2022 (Reference Number BC-10945). Informed consent was obtained from all included participants. Consent for Publication: Not applicable.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Vlaeyen JWS, Maher CG, Wiech K, Van Zundert J, Meloto CB, Diatchenko L, et al. Low back pain. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4(1):52. - PubMed - DOI
    1. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356–2367. - PubMed - DOI
    1. Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017;389(10070):736–747. - PubMed - DOI
    1. Ferreira ML, de Luca K, Haile LM, Steinmetz JD, Culbreth GT, Cross M, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990–2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5(6):e316–e329. - DOI
    1. de Jong M, de Boer AG, Tamminga SJ, Frings-Dresen MH. Quality of working life issues of employees with a chronic physical disease: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):182–196. - PubMed - DOI

LinkOut - more resources