Using intervention mapping to develop evidence-based toolkits that support workers on long-term sick leave and their managers.
Communication
Intervention mapping
Long-term sickness absence
Mental health
Return-to-work
Support
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2023
02 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
02
02
2023
accepted:
22
08
2023
medline:
4
9
2023
pubmed:
3
9
2023
entrez:
2
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Managing long-term sickness absence is challenging in countries where employers and managers have the main responsibility to provide return to work support, particularly for workers with poor mental health. Whilst long-term sick leave and return to work frameworks and guidance exist for employers, there are currently no structured return to work protocols for employers or for their workers encompassing best practice strategies to support a positive and timely return to work outcome. To utilise the intervention mapping (IM) protocol as a framework to develop return to work toolkits that are underpinned by relevant behaviour change theory targeting mental health to promote a positive return to work experiensce for workers on long-term sick leave. This paper provides a worked example of intervention mapping (IM) to develop an intervention through a six-step process to combine theory and evidence in the development of two toolkits - one designed for managers and one to be used by workers on long-term sick leave. As part of this process, collaborative planning techniques were used to develop the intervention. A planning group was set up, through which researchers would work alongside employer, worker, and mental health professional representatives to develop the toolkits. Additionally, feedback on the toolkits were sought from the target populations of workers and managers and from wider employer stakeholders (e.g., human resource specialists). The implementation and evaluation of the toolkits as a workplace intervention were also planned. Two toolkits were designed following the six steps of intervention mapping. Feedback from the planning group (n = 5; psychologist, psychiatrist, person with previous experience of poor mental health, employer and charity worker) and participants (n = 14; employers = 3, wellbeing director = 1; human resources = 2, managers = 2, employees with previous experience of poor mental health = 5) target populations indicated that the toolkits were acceptable and much needed. Using IM allowed the development of an evidence-based practical intervention, whilst incorporating the views of all the impacted stakeholder groups. The feasibility and acceptability of the toolkits and their supporting intervention components, implementation process and methods of assessment will be evaluated in a feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Managing long-term sickness absence is challenging in countries where employers and managers have the main responsibility to provide return to work support, particularly for workers with poor mental health. Whilst long-term sick leave and return to work frameworks and guidance exist for employers, there are currently no structured return to work protocols for employers or for their workers encompassing best practice strategies to support a positive and timely return to work outcome.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To utilise the intervention mapping (IM) protocol as a framework to develop return to work toolkits that are underpinned by relevant behaviour change theory targeting mental health to promote a positive return to work experiensce for workers on long-term sick leave.
METHODS
METHODS
This paper provides a worked example of intervention mapping (IM) to develop an intervention through a six-step process to combine theory and evidence in the development of two toolkits - one designed for managers and one to be used by workers on long-term sick leave. As part of this process, collaborative planning techniques were used to develop the intervention. A planning group was set up, through which researchers would work alongside employer, worker, and mental health professional representatives to develop the toolkits. Additionally, feedback on the toolkits were sought from the target populations of workers and managers and from wider employer stakeholders (e.g., human resource specialists). The implementation and evaluation of the toolkits as a workplace intervention were also planned.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Two toolkits were designed following the six steps of intervention mapping. Feedback from the planning group (n = 5; psychologist, psychiatrist, person with previous experience of poor mental health, employer and charity worker) and participants (n = 14; employers = 3, wellbeing director = 1; human resources = 2, managers = 2, employees with previous experience of poor mental health = 5) target populations indicated that the toolkits were acceptable and much needed.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Using IM allowed the development of an evidence-based practical intervention, whilst incorporating the views of all the impacted stakeholder groups. The feasibility and acceptability of the toolkits and their supporting intervention components, implementation process and methods of assessment will be evaluated in a feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37660008
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09952-0
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09952-0
pmc: PMC10474744
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
942Subventions
Organisme : Midland Engine
ID : CPU 2640
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10
pubmed: 22587960
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022 Sep;95(7):1-13
pubmed: 35106629
J Occup Rehabil. 2020 Sep;30(3):381-419
pubmed: 31673934
JMIR Form Res. 2020 Sep 16;4(9):e15625
pubmed: 32936089
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Aug 19;8(1):188
pubmed: 35986424
Int J Psychol. 2014 Apr;49(2):98-107
pubmed: 24811880
Psychiatry Res. 2012 Jun 30;198(1):140-5
pubmed: 22374551
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 13;10:CD006237
pubmed: 33052607
Psychol Med. 2016 Dec;46(16):3263-3274
pubmed: 27609709
J Psychiatr Res. 2017 Dec;95:28-36
pubmed: 28772111
J Occup Rehabil. 2019 Mar;29(1):31-41
pubmed: 29450678
BMC Public Health. 2016 Nov 25;16(1):1190
pubmed: 27884132
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Sep;24(45):1-408
pubmed: 32930659
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 31;15(7):e0234897
pubmed: 32735586
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009 Jun 09;10:65
pubmed: 19508728
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 6;18(1):838
pubmed: 29976181
BMC Public Health. 2015 Aug 19;15:796
pubmed: 26286039
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017 Sep 1;43(5):436-446
pubmed: 28650513
Marit Stud. 2021;20(2):189-205
pubmed: 35300281
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 29;19(13):
pubmed: 35805665
Am Psychol. 1989 Mar;44(3):513-24
pubmed: 2648906
Front Psychol. 2020 Apr 16;11:661
pubmed: 32373021
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 5;7(10):e016348
pubmed: 28982815
BMC Public Health. 2019 Dec 10;19(1):1653
pubmed: 31823752
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2011 Jun;24(2):153-65
pubmed: 21526385
J Occup Med Toxicol. 2020 Nov 13;15(1):33
pubmed: 33292316
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
BMC Psychiatry. 2012 Feb 16;12:11
pubmed: 22339944
BMC Public Health. 2020 Feb 19;20(1):250
pubmed: 32075611
Am J Ind Med. 1999 Sep;Suppl 1:21-3
pubmed: 10519773
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 5;9(10):e032119
pubmed: 31690647
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2020 Oct;93(7):823-838
pubmed: 32246230
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):475-82
pubmed: 21669372
J Occup Rehabil. 2016 Sep;26(3):350-65
pubmed: 26728492
Occup Environ Med. 2020 Jul;77(7):454-461
pubmed: 32291291
Qual Saf Health Care. 2005 Feb;14(1):26-33
pubmed: 15692000
BMC Public Health. 2013 Jan 05;13:6
pubmed: 23289708
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):18-23
pubmed: 12571340
BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 30;8(6):e020874
pubmed: 29961016
J Occup Rehabil. 2019 Dec;29(4):679-700
pubmed: 30767151
J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):557-68
pubmed: 16254755
JAMA. 2002 May 22-29;287(20):2691-700
pubmed: 12020305
J Occup Rehabil. 2018 Mar;28(1):1-15
pubmed: 28224415
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Nov;81(5):946-60
pubmed: 11708569
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
J Occup Rehabil. 2012 Jun;22(2):196-208
pubmed: 21915686
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:37
pubmed: 22530986
J Cancer Surviv. 2022 Jun;16(3):650-658
pubmed: 34041674
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun 9;20(1):523
pubmed: 32517684
J Occup Rehabil. 2019 Jun;29(2):423-432
pubmed: 30039312
Health Promot Int. 2021 Dec 13;36(Supplement_2):ii53-ii64
pubmed: 34905611