Sustained employability of workers in a production environment: design of a stepped wedge trial to evaluate effectiveness and cost-benefit of the POSE program

BMC Public Health

Michiel F Reneman³  Remko Soer¹  Sandra Brouwer⁴  Michiel R de Boer²  Berry J van Holland³ 

[1] Groningen Spine Center, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands;Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Institute for Health Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands;Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

关键词: Production environment;    Stepped wedge trial;    Workers’ health surveillance;    Functional capacity evaluation;    Sustained employability;   

Others  :  1162805
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-1003

 received in 2012-10-26, accepted in 2012-11-14,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Sustained employability and health are generating awareness of employers in an aging and more complex work force. To meet these needs, employers may offer their employees health surveillance programs, to increase opportunities to work on health and sustained employability. However, evidence for these health surveillance programs is lacking. The FLESH study (Functional Labour Evaluation for Sustained Health and employment) was developed to evaluate a comprehensive workers’ health promotion program on its effectiveness, cost-benefit, and process of the intervention.

Methods

The study is designed as a cluster randomised stepped wedge trial with randomisation at company plant level and is carried out in a large meat processing company. Every contracted employee is offered the opportunity to participate in the POSE program (Promotion Of Sustained Employability). The main goals of the POSE program are 1) providing employee’s insight into their current employability and health status, 2) offering opportunities to improve employability and decrease health risks and 3) improving employability and health sustainably in order to keep them healthy at work. The program consists of a broad assessment followed by a counselling session and, if needed, a tailored intervention. Measurements will be performed at baseline and will be followed up at 20, 40, 60, 80, 106 and 132 weeks. The primary outcome measures are work ability, productivity and absenteeism. Secondary outcomes include health status, vitality, and psychosocial workload. A cost-benefit study will be conducted from the employers’ perspective. A process evaluation will be conducted and the satisfaction of employer and employees with the program will be assessed.

Discussion

This study provides information on the effectiveness of the POSE program on sustained employment. When the program proves to be effective, employees benefit by improved work ability, and health. Employers benefit from healthier employees, reduced sick leave (costs) and higher productivity. The study can expose key elements for a successful implementation and execution of the POSE program and may serve as an example to other companies inside and outside the industry.

Trial registration

The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register (http://www.trialregister.nl webcite): NTR3445

【 授权许可】

   
2012 van Holland et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Leigh JP: Economic burden of occupational injury and illness in the United States. Milbank Q 2011, 89(4):728-772.
• [2]Schultz AB, Chen CY, Edington DW: The cost and impact of health conditions on presenteeism to employers: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 2009, 27(5):365-378.
• [3]Sluiter JK: High-demand jobs: age-related diversity in work ability? Appl Ergon 2006, 37(4):429-440.
• [4]Silverstein M: Meeting the challenges of an aging workforce. Am J Ind Med 2008, 51(4):269-280.
• [5]Kim JY, Kim JI, Son JE, Yun SK: Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome in meat and fish processing plants. J Occup Health 2004, 46(3):230-234.
• [6]Magnusson M, Ortengren R, Andersson GB, Petersen I, Sabel B: An ergonomic study of work methods and physical disorders among professional butchers. Appl Ergon 1987, 18(1):43-50.
• [7]Tappin DC, Bentley TA, Vitalis A, Macky K: An analysis of sprain and strain injury data for the New Zealand meat processing industry from national and industry injury surveillance databases. Ergonomics 2008, 51(11):1721-1734.
• [8]Osborne A, Blake C, Fullen BM, Meredith D, Phelan J, McNamara J, Cunningham C: Risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders among farm owners and farm workers: A systematic review. Am J Ind Med 2011, 55:376-389.
• [9]Tappin DC, Bentley TA, Vitalis A: The role of contextual factors for musculoskeletal disorders in the New Zealand meat processing industry. Ergonomics 2008, 51(10):1576-1593.
• [10]Van Der Klink JJL, Burdorf A, Schaufeli WB, Van Der Wilt GJ, Zijlstra FRH, Brouwer S, Bultmann U: Duurzaam inzetbaar: werk als waarde (Sustainably employable: the value of work). Den Haag: ZonMw; 2011. Ref Type: Report
• [11]Koolhaas W, Brouwer S, Groothoff JW, van der Klink JJ: Enhancing a sustainable healthy working life: design of a clustered randomized controlled trial. BMC Publ Health 2010, 10:461. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Arends I, van der Klink JJ, Bultmann U: Prevention of recurrent sickness absence among employees with common mental disorders: design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial with cost-benefit and effectiveness evaluation. BMC Publ Health 2010, 10:132. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Tuomi K, Ilmarinen J, Jahkola A, Katajarinne L, Tulkki A: Work Ability Index: 2nd revised edition. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 1998.
• [14]Salonen P, Arola H, Nygard CH, Huhtala H, Koivisto AM: Factors associated with premature departure from working life among ageing food industry employees. Occup Med (Lond) 2003, 53(1):65-68.
• [15]Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (SZW): Slachterijen en vleesverwerkende industrie; Inspectieresultaten in de vleessector op het gebied van arbeidsomstandigheden. Utrecht: Arbeidsinspectie; 2010. Ref Type: Report
• [16]Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (SZW): Arbeidsrisico's in de vleesindustrie; gerichte inspecties in uw branche. Utrecht: Arbeidsinspectie; 2009. Ref Type: Report
• [17]Pelletier KR: A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the worksite: update VII 2004–2008. J Occup Environ Med 2009, 51(7):822-837.
• [18]Plat MJ, Frings-Dresen MH, Sluiter JK: A systematic review of job-specific workers' health surveillance activities for fire-fighting, ambulance, police and military personnel. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2011, 84(8):839-857.
• [19]Kreis J, Bödeker W: Health-related and economic benefits of workplace health promotion and prevention. Essen: BKK Bundesverband; 2004. Ref Type: Report
• [20]Mahmud N, Schonstein E, Schaafsma F, Lehtola MM, Fassier JB, Reneman MF, Verbeek JH: Pre-employment examinations for preventing occupational injury and disease in workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 12(12):CD008881.
• [21]Mahmud N, Schonstein E, Schaafsma F, Lehtola MM, Fassier JB, Verbeek JH, Reneman MF: Functional capacity evaluations for the prevention of occupational re-injuries in injured workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 7(7):CD007290.
• [22]Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996, 276(8):637-639.
• [23]Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, CONSORT group: CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004, 328(7441):702-708.
• [24]Statistics Netherlands[http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/methoden/begrippen/default.htm?ConceptID=2755 webcite]
• [25]Thomas S, Reading J, Shephard RJ: Revision of the physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can J Sport Sci 1992, 17(4):338-345.
• [26]Soer R, van der Schans CP, Geertzen JH, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, Reneman MF: Normative values for a functional capacity evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009, 90(10):1785-1794.
• [27]Tarnus E, Catan A, Verkindt C, Bourdon E: Evaluation of maximal O uptake with undergraduate students at the university of La reunion. Adv Physiol Educ 2011, 35(1):76-81.
• [28]NVAB: Richtlijn Oogonderzoek bij Beeldschermwerkers. Utrecht: NVAB; 2001.
• [29]NVAB: Richtlijn Astma en COPD. Utrecht: NVAB; 2003.
• [30]NVAB: Module depressie en arbeid. Utrecht: NVAB; 2005.
• [31]NVAB: Multidisciplinaire richtlijn preventie beroepsslechthorendheid. Utrecht: NVAB; 2006.
• [32]NVAB: Richtlijn psychische problemen. Utrecht: NVAB; 2007.
• [33]Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap: Multidisciplinaire richtlijn cardiovasculair risicomanagement (herziening 2011). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2011.
• [34]Czabala C, Charzynska K, Mroziak B: Psychosocial interventions in workplace mental health promotion: an overview. Health Promot Int 2011, 26(Suppl 1):i70-i84.
• [35]Greaves CJ, Sheppard KE, Abraham C, Hardeman W, Roden M, Evans PH, Schwarz P, IMAGE Study Group: Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness in dietary and physical activity interventions. BMC Publ Health 2011, 11:119. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Hazard RG: Low-back and neck pain diagnosis and treatment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007, 86(1 Suppl):S59-S68.
• [37]Verhagen AP, Karels C, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Feleus A, Dahaghin S, Burdorf A, De Vet HC, Koes BW: Ergonomic and physiotherapeutic interventions for treating work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults. A Cochrane systematic review. Eura Medicophys 2007, 43(3):391-405.
• [38]Guzman J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bombardier C: Multidisciplinary bio-psycho-social rehabilitation for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002, 1(1):CD000963.
• [39]Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF: Productivity losses without absence: measurement validation and empirical evidence. Health Policy 1999, 48(1):13-27.
• [40]Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB: The second version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scand J Public Health 2010, 38(3 Suppl):8-24.
• [41]De Meester M, Kiss P: Starting with the COPSOQ II in the Flemish public sector in Belgium. Proceedings of the second international workshop on the COPSOQ: 9–10 September 2009. Freiburg, Germany; 2009.
• [42]Rabin R, de Charro F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001, 33(5):337-343.
• [43]Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM: The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ 1993, 2(3):217-227.
• [44]VanderZee KI, Sanderman R, Heyink JW, De Haes H: Psychometric qualities of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0: a multidimensional measure of general health status. Int J Behav Med 1996, 3(2):104-122.
• [45]Hildebrandt VH, Bongers PM, van Dijk FJ, Kemper HC, Dul J: Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire: description and basic qualities. Ergonomics 2001, 44(12):1038-1055.
• [46]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 Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002:1.
• [47]Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P: Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract 2005, 6(2):134-147.
• [48]Kristensen TS: Intervention studies in occupational epidemiology. Occup Environ Med 2005, 62(3):205-210.
• [49]Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Hogh A, Borg V: The copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire–a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health 2005, 31(6):438-449.
• [50]de Brey H: A cross-national validation of the client satisfaction questionnaire: the Dutch experience. Eval Program Plann 1983, 6(3–4):395-400.
• [51]Wensing M, Baker R, Vedsted P, Heje H, Klingenberg A, Broge B, Kersnik J, Seuntjens L, Kunzi B, Milano M, Mola E, Elwyn G, Grol R: Europep 2006. Revised europep instrument and user manual. Nijmegen: UMC St. Radboud; 2006.
• [52]Hussey MA, Hughes JP: Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2007, 28(2):182-191.
• [53]Kuijer PP, Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Van Duivenbooden C, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH: Prognostic value of self-reported work ability and performance-based lifting tests for sustainable return to work among construction workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 2012. in press
• [54]Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, Wind H, van Duivenbooden C, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH: Criterion-related validity of functional capacity evaluation lifting tests on future work disability risk and return to work in the construction industry. Occup Environ Med 2009, 66(10):657-663.
• [55]Branton EN, Arnold KM, Appelt SR, Hodges MM, Battie MC, Gross DP: A short-form functional capacity evaluation predicts time to recovery but not sustained return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil 2010, 20(3):387-393.
• [56]Gross DP, Battie MC: Does functional capacity evaluation predict recovery in workers' compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders? Occup Environ Med 2006, 63(6):404-410.