IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v100y2014icp123-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Process evaluation of a problem solving intervention to prevent recurrent sickness absence in workers with common mental disorders

Author

Listed:
  • Arends, Iris
  • Bültmann, Ute
  • Nielsen, Karina
  • van Rhenen, Willem
  • de Boer, Michiel R.
  • van der Klink, Jac J.L.

Abstract

Common mental disorders (CMDs) are a major cause of sickness absence. Twenty to 30% of the workers who return to work after sickness absence due to CMDs experience recurrent sickness absence. We developed the Stimulating Healthy participation And Relapse Prevention (SHARP)-at work intervention, a problem solving intervention delivered by occupational physicians (OPs), to prevent recurrent sickness absence in this worker population in The Netherlands. A process evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomised controlled trial to (1) evaluate whether the SHARP-at work intervention was implemented according to the protocol and differed from treatment in the control group, and (2) to investigate the relationship between the key elements of the intervention and the effect outcome (i.e. recurrent sickness absence). We collected process data for both the intervention and control group on recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, context and satisfaction. Data on recurrent sickness absence was collected through the registry system of the collaborating occupational health service. The study was performed in the Netherlands, and between 2010 and 2012, 154 OPs and 158 participants participated. Compared to the control group, participants in the intervention group more frequently had two or more consultations with the OP (odds ratio [OR] = 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2–8.8) and completed more assignments (OR = 33.8, 95% CI = 10.4–109.5) as recommended in the intervention protocol. OPs and participants were satisfied with the intervention and rated it as applicable. Several individual intervention components were linked to the effect outcome. The process evaluation showed that the SHARP-at work intervention was conducted according to the protocol for the majority of the participants and well-received by OPs and participants. Furthermore, the intervention differed from treatment in the control group. Overall, the results provide support for implementing the intervention in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Arends, Iris & Bültmann, Ute & Nielsen, Karina & van Rhenen, Willem & de Boer, Michiel R. & van der Klink, Jac J.L., 2014. "Process evaluation of a problem solving intervention to prevent recurrent sickness absence in workers with common mental disorders," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 123-132.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:100:y:2014:i:c:p:123-132
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613006035
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.041?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bouffard, Jeffrey A. & Taxman, Faye S. & Silverman, Rebecca, 2003. "Improving process evaluations of correctional programs by using a comprehensive evaluation methodology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 149-161, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eva Real & Lluís Jover & Ricard Verdaguer & Antoni Griera & Cinto Segalàs & Pino Alonso & Fernando Contreras & Antoni Arteman & José M Menchón, 2016. "Factors Associated with Long-Term Sickness Absence Due to Mental Disorders: A Cohort Study of 7.112 Patients during the Spanish Economic Crisis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Daniels, Kevin & Watson, David & Nayani, Rachel & Tregaskis, Olga & Hogg, Martin & Etuknwa, Abasiama & Semkina, Antonina, 2021. "Implementing practices focused on workplace health and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.
    2. Grommon, Eric, 2018. "Managed access technology to combat contraband cell phones in prison: Findings from a process evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 39-47.
    3. Odendaal, Willem A. & Marais, Sandra & Munro, Salla & van Niekerk, Ashley, 2008. "When the trivial becomes meaningful: Reflections on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 209-216, May.
    4. Saunders, Ruth P. & Ward, Dianne & Felton, Gwen M. & Dowda, Marsha & Pate, Russell R., 2006. "Examining the link between program implementation and behavior outcomes in the lifestyle education for activity program (LEAP)," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 352-364, November.
    5. Leire Gartzia, 2021. "Gender Equality in Business Action: A Multi-Agent Change Management Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, May.
    6. Saunders, Ruth P. & Wilcox, Sara & Baruth, Meghan & Dowda, Marsha, 2014. "Process evaluation methods, implementation fidelity results and relationship to physical activity and healthy eating in the Faith, Activity, and Nutrition (FAN) study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 93-102.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:100:y:2014:i:c:p:123-132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.