Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled study of a multicomponent intervention to promote a sustainable return to work of workers on long-term sick leave - PROWORK: PROmoting a Sustainable and Healthy Return to WORK.
Intervention
Large enterprises
Long-term sickness absence
Manager
Mental health
Positive communication
Return to work
Small and medium enterprises
Worker
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Aug 2022
19 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
28
02
2022
accepted:
01
08
2022
entrez:
19
8
2022
pubmed:
20
8
2022
medline:
20
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The cost of sickness absence has major social, psychological and financial implications for individuals and organisations. Return-to-work (RTW) interventions that support good quality communication and contact with the workplace can reduce the length of sickness absence by between 15 and 30 days. However, initiatives promoting a sustainable return to work for workers with poor mental health on long-term sickness absence across small, medium and large enterprises (SMEs and LEs) are limited. This paper describes the protocol of a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the feasibility of implementing a RTW intervention across SMEs and LEs across all sectors. A two-arm feasibility RCT with a 4-month intervention will be conducted in SMEs and LE enterprises from the Midlands region, UK. At least 8 organisations (4 controls and interventions), and at least 60 workers and/or managers, will be recruited and randomised into the intervention and control group (30 interventions, 30 controls). Workers on long-term sickness absence (LTSA) (between 8 and 50 days) and managers with a worker on LTSA will be eligible to participate. The intervention is a behavioural change programme, including a managers and workers RTW toolkit, focused on supporting sickness absence and RTW through the provision of knowledge, problem-solving, action planning, goal setting and positive communication that leads to a sustainable RTW. Organisations assigned to the control group will continue with their usual practice. Measurements of mental health, RTW, work outcomes, quality-of-life, workplace support and communication and other demographic data will be taken at baseline, 2 months and 4 months. Feasibility will be assessed based on recruitment, retention, attrition, completion of measures and intervention compliance for which specific process and research outcomes have been established. A process evaluation will explore the experiences and acceptability of the intervention components and evaluation measures. Exploratory economic evaluation will be conducted to further inform a definitive trial. This is a novel intervention using a worker-manager approach to promote a sustainable return to work of workers on long-term sick leave due to poor mental wellbeing. If this intervention is shown to be feasible, the outcomes will inform a larger scale randomised control trial. ISRCTN90032009 (retrospectively registered, date registered 15th December 2020).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The cost of sickness absence has major social, psychological and financial implications for individuals and organisations. Return-to-work (RTW) interventions that support good quality communication and contact with the workplace can reduce the length of sickness absence by between 15 and 30 days. However, initiatives promoting a sustainable return to work for workers with poor mental health on long-term sickness absence across small, medium and large enterprises (SMEs and LEs) are limited. This paper describes the protocol of a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the feasibility of implementing a RTW intervention across SMEs and LEs across all sectors.
METHODS AND DESIGN
METHODS
A two-arm feasibility RCT with a 4-month intervention will be conducted in SMEs and LE enterprises from the Midlands region, UK. At least 8 organisations (4 controls and interventions), and at least 60 workers and/or managers, will be recruited and randomised into the intervention and control group (30 interventions, 30 controls). Workers on long-term sickness absence (LTSA) (between 8 and 50 days) and managers with a worker on LTSA will be eligible to participate. The intervention is a behavioural change programme, including a managers and workers RTW toolkit, focused on supporting sickness absence and RTW through the provision of knowledge, problem-solving, action planning, goal setting and positive communication that leads to a sustainable RTW. Organisations assigned to the control group will continue with their usual practice. Measurements of mental health, RTW, work outcomes, quality-of-life, workplace support and communication and other demographic data will be taken at baseline, 2 months and 4 months. Feasibility will be assessed based on recruitment, retention, attrition, completion of measures and intervention compliance for which specific process and research outcomes have been established. A process evaluation will explore the experiences and acceptability of the intervention components and evaluation measures. Exploratory economic evaluation will be conducted to further inform a definitive trial.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This is a novel intervention using a worker-manager approach to promote a sustainable return to work of workers on long-term sick leave due to poor mental wellbeing. If this intervention is shown to be feasible, the outcomes will inform a larger scale randomised control trial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ISRCTN90032009 (retrospectively registered, date registered 15th December 2020).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35986424
doi: 10.1186/s40814-022-01143-8
pii: 10.1186/s40814-022-01143-8
pmc: PMC9389507
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
188Subventions
Organisme : Midlands Engine
ID : CPU 2640 - Midlands Engine Mental Health and Productivity Pilot
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
Psychol Med. 2016 Dec;46(16):3263-3274
pubmed: 27609709
J Occup Rehabil. 2018 Mar;28(1):97-106
pubmed: 28299536
Am Psychol. 1989 Mar;44(3):513-24
pubmed: 2648906
Health Technol Assess. 2005 May;9(16):1-134, iii
pubmed: 15876362
BMJ. 2019 Jan 28;364:l295
pubmed: 30692081
J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Sep;17(3):450-72
pubmed: 17701326
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
J Occup Rehabil. 2018 Sep;28(3):393-417
pubmed: 28980107
Psychiatry Res. 2012 Jun 30;198(1):140-5
pubmed: 22374551
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 13;10:CD006237
pubmed: 33052607
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2011 Jun;24(2):153-65
pubmed: 21526385
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
BMC Public Health. 2012 Oct 10;12:861
pubmed: 23050983
Occup Environ Med. 2018 Sep;75(9):675-686
pubmed: 29954920
BMJ. 2013 Nov 20;347:f6753
pubmed: 24259324
BMJ. 2012 Sep 04;345:e5661
pubmed: 22951546
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Aug 20;13:104
pubmed: 23961782
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307-12
pubmed: 15189396
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):475-82
pubmed: 21669372
Pharmacoeconomics. 1993 Nov;4(5):353-65
pubmed: 10146874
Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26-33
pubmed: 15692000
J Occup Rehabil. 2012 Jun;22(2):196-208
pubmed: 21915686
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
pubmed: 22530986
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Mar;65(3):301-8
pubmed: 22169081
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801