Peer support in an occupational setting preventing LBP-related sick leave

Werner, Erik L.; Lærum, E; Wormgoor, Marjon E. A.; Lindh, Erik; Indahl, Aage

doi:10.1093/occmed/kqm094

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another approach has focused on improving support in the workplace, through trained supervisors or a non-medical peer advocate, who provide reassurance, facilitate accommodations, and problem-solving. This strategy has been successful in decreasing work absence due to musculoskeletal pain, minor mental health conditions (anxiety) and minor gastrointestinal problems [42]. As accommodations are an essential component of work disability prevention in workers with chronic illness [43], workplaces are experimenting with a bottom-up non-medical strategy for workplace accommodations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Increased emphasis should be placed on integrated and sustainable involvement among employer, worker and health care providers. Investigation in some contexts and the Special Panel suggest the potential value of developing and testing a stepped care approach to WD in the workplace—where an initial simple workplace intervention is followed by a sequence of more intensive interventions if the initial approach is not successful [42]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustaining Work Participation Across the Life Course

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Many disability prevention strategies are focused on acute injuries and brief illness episodes, but there will be growing challenges for employers to manage circumstances of recurrent, chronic, or fluctuating symptoms in an aging workforce. The goal of this article is to summarize existing peer-review research in this area, compare this with employer discourse in the grey literature, and recommend future research priorities. Methods The authors participated in a year-long sponsored collaboration that ultimately led to an invited 3-day conference, “Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability”, held October 14–16, 2015, in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the scientific and industry literature, group discussion to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, and feedback from peer researchers and a special panel of experts with employer experience. Results Cancer and mental illness were chosen as examples of chronic or recurring conditions that might challenge conventional workplace return-to-work practices. Workplace problems identified in the literature included fatigue, emotional exhaustion, poor supervisor and co-worker support, stigma, discrimination, and difficulties finding appropriate accommodations. Workplace intervention research is generally lacking, but there is preliminary support for improving workplace self-management strategies, collaborative problem-solving, and providing checklists and other tools for job accommodation, ideas echoed in the literature directed toward employers. Research might be improved by following workers from an earlier stage of developing workplace concerns. Conclusions Future research of work disability should focus on earlier identification of at-risk workers with chronic conditions, the use of more innovative and flexible accommodation strategies matched to specific functional losses, stronger integration of the workplace into on-going rehabilitation efforts, and a better understanding of stigma and other social factors at work.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustaining Work Participation Across the Life Course

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier research indicates that health care should use questionnaires that cover these types of risk factors in order to support work ability [25, 26]. Work support [27] and formalised peer support at the workplace [28] has been found to be associated with reduced low back pain and reduction in sick leave. For this reason, there are recommendations that the examination of the patient also should include assessment of work-related psychosocial risk factors, which can predict the risk of chronic disabling back pain [29, 30].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Blue flags”, development of a short clinical questionnaire on work-related psychosocial risk factors - a validation study in primary care

Sennehed

Gard

Holmberg

et al. 2017

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWorking conditions substantially influence health, work ability and sick leave. Useful instruments to help clinicians pay attention to working conditions are lacking in primary care (PC). The aim of this study was to test the validity of a short “Blue flags” questionnaire, which focuses on work-related psychosocial risk factors and any potential need for contacts and/or actions at the workplace.MethodsFrom the original“The General Nordic Questionnaire” (QPSNordic) the research group identified five content areas with a total of 51 items which were considered to be most relevant focusing on work-related psychosocial risk factors. Fourteen items were selected from the identified QPSNordic content areas and organised in a short questionnaire “Blue flags”. These 14 items were validated towards the 51 QPSNordic items. Content validity was reviewed by a professional panel and a patient panel. Structural and concurrent validity were also tested within a randomised clinical trial.ResultsThe two panels (n = 111) considered the 14 psychosocial items to be relevant. A four-factor model was extracted with an explained variance of 25.2%, 14.9%, 10.9% and 8.3% respectively. All 14 items showed satisfactory loadings on all factors. Concerning concurrent validity the overall correlation was very strong rs = 0.87 (p < 0.001).). Correlations were moderately strong for factor one, rs = 0.62 (p < 0.001) and factor two, rs = 0.74 (p < 0.001). Factor three and factor four were weaker, bur still fair and significant at rs = 0.53 (p < 0.001) and rs = 0.41 (p < 0.001) respectively. The internal consistency of the whole “Blue flags” was good with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76.ConclusionsThe content, structural and concurrent validity were satisfactory in this first step of development of the “Blue flags” questionnaire. In summary, the overall validity is considered acceptable. Testing in clinical contexts and in other patient populations is recommended to ensure predictive validity and usefulness.

show abstract

“…Une autre limitation potentielle tient à l'emploi de la base de données Medline ; les auteurs ne peuvent exclure la possibilité que des études publiées en français ou dans d'autres langues européennes aient de ce fait été omises. Ces réserves étant faites, les principaux facteurs du contexte professionnel identifiés comme entravant ou retardant le retour au travail sont synthétisés dans le tableau I ; les facteurs facilitants ne sont pas décrits dans la mesure où Incapacité de travail prolongée -facteurs de risque professionnels [35,36] ; ces référents peuvent être des « pairs » formés ou des professionnels de la prévention en santé au travail. Le rôle possible des supérieurs directs en tant qu'acteurs du retour au travail et l'implication souhaitable des collègues de travail sont également mis en exergue [28,30,37].…”

Section: Synthèse Et Discussionunclassified

“…L'adaptation des horaires ou des tâches, plus couramment réalisée que les modifications ergonomiques, montre une efficacité bien moindre. Afin d'évaluer l'importance du caractère participatif des interventions, des chercheurs norvégiens ont étudié l'impact du soutien de pairs dans l'entreprise sur les croyances quant à la lombalgie, la douleur, la consommation de soins de santé et l'absentéisme [35]. Dans le contexte d'une large campagne médiatique sur les croyances par rapport aux lombalgies, des conseillers recrutés parmi les « pairs » ont été formés dans des entreprises pour informer, conseiller et faciliter la mise en place d'aménagements ergonomiques.…”

Section: Influence Du Type D'interventionunclassified