Interventions Developed with the Intervention Mapping Protocol in Work Disability Prevention: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Abstract

Purposes Intervention mapping (IM) is a protocol for developing effective behavior change interventions. It has been used for 10 years to develop work disability prevention (WDP) interventions, but it is not known to what extent and with what success. The main objective of this study was to review the effectiveness of these interventions. Secondary objectives were to review their fidelity to the IM protocol, their theoretical frameworks and their content. Methods A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Pascal, Francis, and BDSP. All titles and abstracts were reviewed. A standardized extraction form was developed. All included studies were reviewed by two reviewers blinded to each other. Results Eight WDP interventions were identified aimed at return to work (RTW; n = 6) and self-management at work (n = 2). RTW interventions targeted workers with stress-related mental disorders (n = 1), low back pain (n = 1), musculoskeletal disorders (n = 1), cancer (n = 2) and gynecological surgery (n = 1). The fidelity to the IM protocol was weaker for the participatory planning group. Matrices of change, change methods, and applications were systematically reported. The main theoretical frameworks used were the attitude-social influence-self efficacy model (n = 4) and the theory of planned behavior (n = 2). Half of the interventions included a workplace component (n = 4). Two interventions were reported as effective, and one partially effective. Conclusion The IM protocol is used in WDP since 2007. The participative dimension appears underused. Few theoretical frameworks were used. Implications are to better consider the stakeholders involvement, and mobilize theoretical frameworks with greater attempts to intervene on the work environment.

Supporting employers to enhance the return to work of cancer survivors: development of a web-based intervention (MiLES intervention)

“…IM is one of the most comprehensive systematic approaches for the development of theory and evidence-based behavior change interventions, and it is a framework that is characterized by a participative approach involving the relevant stakeholders [29,30]. This framework has been used regularly in the development and implementation of both cancer-related [31] and work-related interventions [32][33][34][35]. The IM framework consists of six consecutive steps, with the results of each step guiding the subsequent one: step 1, needs assessment; step 2, formulating objectives using a logic model of change; step 3, selecting theories and practical strategies; step 4, developing the intervention; step 5, planning for program adoption and implementation; and step 6, planning for evaluation [30].…”

Using intervention mapping to develop an occupational advice intervention to aid return to work following hip and knee replacement in the United Kingdom

“…It is unusual for IM studies focusing on return to work interventions to report on all six steps of the IM process, particularly Step 5. Fassier et al [27] found that this step was insufficiently developed in any previous studies for it to be included in their review of fidelity to the IM protocol. Although we focus in this paper on steps 1-4 that describe the process for intervention development, steps 5 (implementation) and 6 (feasibility testing) have also been completed and these will be reported separately.…”

“…IM is a framework for developing effective theory-and evidence-based behaviour change interventions [23,24]. IM was developed for, and is widely used in health promotion, but has also been used in rehabilitation, for example in the management of osteoarthritis and back pain [25] and stroke [26] as well as in work disability prevention [27]. The IM framework was first used in work disability prevention in 2007.…”

“…This helped to broaden the scope of the intervention beyond the 'individual' and ensure these groups were not neglected. In their systematic review, Fassier et al [27] concluded that IM is not a cast-iron solution to prevent theory and/or implementation failures of work disability prevention interventions. They have suggested that the limited number of effective interventions in work disability prevention indicate that IM needs to be adapted to reflect the complex interaction between healthcare and the workplace.…”

Developing a Return to Work Intervention for Breast Cancer Survivors with the Intervention Mapping Protocol: Challenges and Opportunities of the Needs Assessment

“…The composition of the planning group represents faithfully the intersectoral nature of the problem. Despite the importance of the participative process in the IM protocol, only a few studies using this protocol in the field of cancer ( 29 ) and in the field of RTW ( 65 ) reported the association with a complete planning group from the needs assessment phase. This shortcoming has been discussed as a potential cause for the lack of relevance, acceptability, and/or efficiency of the studies developed ( 29 ).…”