Experience of the implementation of a multi-stakeholder return-to-work programme.
BACKGROUND
Employers can use several strategies to facilitate return-to-work for workers on sick leave, but there seems to be limited knowledge of how workplace-based interventions are actually implemented in organisations. One public Swedish employer initiated a return-to-work programme which incorporated interventions suggested by earlier research, e.g. multi-professional health assessment, case management, educational peer-support groups and adapted workplace training. The overall purpose of the study is to analyse how the programme was implemented and experienced in the organisation, from the perspective of involved stakeholders, i.e. supervisors, occupational health consultants and a project coordinator. The objective of this paper is to identify and analyse how these stakeholders perceived that the programme had been implemented in relation to its intentions.


METHODS
A qualitative method was used, consisting of individual interviews with eight supervisors and the project leader. Two group interviews with five occupational health service consultants were also conducted.


RESULTS
The study revealed barriers to the implementation of return-to-work interventions. Not all of the intended interventions had been implemented as expected in policy. One explanation is that the key stakeholders expressed a more biomedical, individual view of work ability, while the programme was based on a more holistic, biopsychosocial view.


CONCLUSIONS
Implementation of a return-to-work programme is an ongoing, long-term multi-level strategy, requiring time for reflection, stakeholder participation, openness to change of intervention activities, and continuous communication.
Tjulin
Asa
A
National Centre for Work and Rehabilitation, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linkoping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden. asa.tjulin@liu.se
Edvardsson Stiwne
Elinor
E
Ekberg
Kerstin
K
D004651:Employment; D006801:Humans; D009786:Occupational Health Services; D019982:Organizational Case Studies; D018582:Sick Leave; D013548:Sweden; D014938:Work Capacity Evaluation
Work. 2007;29(2):155-64
17726291
Work. 2001;17(1):11-22
12441618
J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Mar;17(1):93-106
16816996
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD002194
12804428
J Occup Rehabil. 2004 Sep;14(3):207-16
15156779
Int J Health Serv. 1992;22(4):689-704
1399176
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2007 Jul-Oct;30(4-5):444-57
17673291
J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):525-42
16254753
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006 Aug;32(4):257-69
16932823
Disabil Rehabil. 2004 Feb 18;26(4):213-22
15164955
J Occup Rehabil. 2008 Mar;18(1):2-15
18080827
Assist Technol. 2001;13(2):131-8
12530840
Work. 2006;26(2):107-14
16477102
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005 Aug;19(4):655-70
15949782
J Occup Environ Med. 2003 May;45(5):499-506
12762074
Qual Assur. 2000 Jan-Mar;8(1):3-10
11710305
J Occup Rehabil. 2003 Sep;13(3):169-81
12966691
Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Apr 30;29(8):607-24
17453982
J Occup Rehabil. 2003 Mar;13(1):11-20
12611027
J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):507-24
16254752
J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Jun;17(2):327-52
17286211
Occup Med. 2000 Oct-Dec;15(4):789-801, v
11013057