Implementation of the Participatory Approach to increase supervisors’ self-efficacy in supporting employees at risk for sick leave; design of a randomised controlled trial

BMC Public Health

Johannes R Anema³  Ute Bültmann¹  William S Shaw⁵  Cécile RL Boot²  Frederieke G Schaafsma³  Ruben A Kraaijeveld⁴ 

[1] Department of Health Sciences, Community & Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands;Body@Work, Research Center Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Research Centre for Insurance Medicine, Collaboration between AMC-UMCG-UWV-VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, Amsterdam, 1007 MB, The Netherlands;Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, USA

关键词: RCT;    Supervisors;    Sick leave;    Participatory Approach;   

Others  :  1161932
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-750

 received in 2013-07-23, accepted in 2013-08-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The burden of sick leave for society and organisations underlines the urgent need to prevent sick leave. An effective workplace intervention for organisations to shorten sick leave episodes is the Participatory Approach (PA). In this study, we hypothesize that implementation of the PA for supervisors within organisations may prevent sick leave as well. However, implementation of the PA within an organisation is difficult, and barriers at different levels (employee, supervisor and organisational) exist. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy of the PA.

Methods

In a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) a multifaceted implementation of the PA will be compared with a minimal implementation strategy of the PA. Participating organisations are a university medical centre, a university and a steel factory. Randomisation will take place at department level. Intervention departments will receive a multifaceted implementation strategy of the PA, which incorporates a working group, supervisor training, and supervisor coaching. Control departments will receive the minimal implementation strategy of the PA, consisting of written information only. The primary outcome measure is self-efficacy of supervisors in joint problem solving to improve work functioning of employees with health complaints and to prevent sick leave. A secondary outcome measure at supervisor level is self-efficacy in communicating with employees about situations of reduced work functioning or being at risk for sick leave. Secondary outcome measures at employee level are attitude, self-efficacy, and social influence, with regard to addressing situations of reduced work functioning or being at risk for sick leave, as well as work functioning, psychological well being, and sick leave. Measurements will take place at baseline, and after six and twelve months follow-up. A process evaluation will be performed as well.

Discussion

This study will be relevant for all organisations with employees at risk for sick leave in health care, education, and industry. Study results will give an insight into the effectiveness of the multifaceted implementation strategy of the PA for supervisors to improve work functioning of employees with health complaints, and to prevent sick leave.

Trial registration

NTR3733

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Kraaijeveld et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Direct Health Solutions 2010 Absence Management Survey Summary. http://www.dhs.net.au/NewsDetail.aspx?pid=184 webcite
• [2]Klein Hesselink J, Hooftman W, Koppes L: Ziekteverzuim in Nederland in 2010 [Absenteeism in the Netherlands in 2010]. Hoofddorp: TNO; 2012.
• [3]Stafford P: Sick leave costs business $30 billion - here’s how to cut it back. http://www.smartcompany.com.au/managing-people/040206-20100907-sick-leave-costs-business-30-billion-here-s-how-to-cut-it-back-2.html webcite
• [4]Stevens M: Rising sick bill ‘costs UK business £29bn a year’. http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/07/15/rising-sick-bill-costs-uk-business-163-29bn-a-year.aspx webcite
• [5]CBS Statline: Ziekteverzuimpercentage; bedrijfstakken (SBI 2008) en bedrijfsgrootte [Absenteeism rates; industries (SBI 2008) and size of industries]. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=80072NED&D1=0&D2=0-6 webcite
• [6]Anema JR, Steenstra IA, Bongers PM, de Vet HC, Knol DL, Loisel P, et al.: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain: graded activity or workplace intervention or both? A randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976 ) 2007, 32:291-298.
• [7]Driessen MT, Anema JR, Proper KI, van der Beek AJ: Authors’ response: RCTs of ergonomic interventions. Occup Environ Med 2010, 67:218-219.
• [8]Lambeek LC, van Mechelen W, Knol DL, Loisel P, Anema JR: Randomised controlled trial of integrated care to reduce disability from chronic low back pain in working and private life. BMJ 2010, 340:c1035.
• [9]van Oostrom SH, van Mechelen W, Terluin B, de Vet HC, Knol DL, Anema JR: A workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress: results of a randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med 2010, 67:596-602.
• [10]van Oostrom SH, van Mechelen W, Terluin B, de Vet HC, 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.
• [11]Nielsen ML, Rugulies R, Christensen KB, Smith-Hansen L, Kristensen TS: Psychosocial work environment predictors of short and long spells of registered sickness absence during a 2-year follow up. Occup Environ Med 2006, 48:591-598.
• [12]Scandura TA, Graen GB: Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. J Appl Psychol 1984, 69:428-436.
• [13]Skakon J, Nielsen K, Borg V, Guzman J: Are leaders’ well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work Stress 2010, 24:107-139.
• [14]Theorell T, Emdad R, Arnetz B, Weingarten AM: Employee effects of an educational program for managers at an insurance company. Psychosom Med 2001, 63:724-733.
• [15]Venkataramani V, Green SG, Schleicher DJ: Well-connected leaders: the impact of leaders’ social network ties on LMX and members’ work attitudes. J Appl Psychol 2010, 95:1071-1084.
• [16]Shaw WS, Robertson MM, Pransky G, McLellan RK: Employee perspectives on the role of supervisors to prevent workplace disability after injuries. J Occup Rehabil 2003, 13:129-142.
• [17]Shaw WS, Robertson MM, McLellan RK, Verma S, Pransky G: A controlled case study of supervisor training to optimize response to injury in the food processing industry. Work 2006, 26:107-114.
• [18]Grol R, Grimshaw J: From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003, 362:1225-1230.
• [19]Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al.: The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:663-694.
• [20]Spreitzer GM: Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad Manag J 1995, 38:1442-1465.
• [21]Hakkaart-Van Roijen L, Essink-Bot M: Handleiding Vragenlijst over Ziekte en Werk [Manual Questionnaire Illness and Work]. : Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Instituut Maatschappelijke Gezondheidszorg, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; 1999.
• [22]Terluin B, van Marwijk HW, Ader HJ, de Vet HC, Penninx BW, Hermens ML, et al.: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. BMC Psychiatry 2006, 6:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M: The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and psychological measurement 2006, 66:701-716.
• [24]van Veldhoven M, Broersen S: Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale”. Occup Environ Med 2003, 60(Suppl 1):i3-i9.
• [25]Shaw WS, Reme SE, Linton SJ, Huang YH, Pransky G: 3rd place, PREMUS best paper competition: development of the return-to-work self-efficacy (RTWSE-19) questionnaire–psychometric properties and predictive validity. Scand J Work Environ Health 2011, 37:109-119.
• [26]Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, et al.: Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992, 305:160-164.
• [27]Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B: The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol 1998, 3:322-355.
• [28]Carless SA, Wearing AJ, Mann L: A short measure of transformational leadership. J Bus Psychol 2000, 14:389-405.
• [29]Linnan L, Steckler A: Process evaluation for public health interventions and research; an overview. In Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. Edited by Linnan L, Steckler A. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002:1-23.