Comparing the new interdisciplinary Health in work intervention to conventional monodisciplinary welfare interventions at Norwegian workplaces: Protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial (Preprint)

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anje Christina Höper ◽  
Christoffer Lilja Terjesen ◽  
Nils Fleten

BACKGROUND Musculoskeletal and mental health complaints are the dominant diagnostic categories in long-term sick leave and disability pensions in Norway. Continuing to work despite health complaints is often beneficial, and a good work environment can improve work inclusion for people affected. In 2001, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) began to offer inclusive work measures (IWM) to improve the psychosocial work environment, as well as work inclusion of people with health complaints. In 2018, NAV and specialist health services started offering the new collaborative Health in work programme. Its workplace intervention (HIW) presents health- and welfare information that may improve employees´ coping ability regarding common health complaints. It encourages understanding of coworkers´ health complaints and appropriate work adjustments, in order to increase work participation. OBJECTIVE This protocol presents an ongoing, two-arm, pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. Its aim is to compare the effect of monodisciplinary IWM (treatment as usual) and interdisciplinary HIW in terms of changes in overall sickness absence, healthcare utilisation, health-related quality of life, and costs. Secondary objectives are to compare changes in individual sickness absence, psychosocial work environment, job and life satisfaction, health, and health anxiety, both at the individual and the group level. METHODS Data will be collected from national registers, trial-specific registrations and questionnaires. Effects will be explored by difference-in-difference analysis, and regression modelling. Multilevel analysis will visualise any cluster effects by intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS Inclusion is completed with 97 workplaces and 1383 individual consents. CONCLUSIONS Data collection will be finished with the last questionnaires to be sent out in July 2023. This trial will contribute to fill knowledge gaps about effectiveness and costs of workplace interventions, thereby benefitting health and welfare services, political decision-makers, and the public and business sectors. CLINICALTRIAL The trial is approved by the Norwegian Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics and registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04000035). Findings will be published in reports, peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.

2021 ◽  
pp. 140349482110183
Author(s):  
Luise Mølenberg Begtrup ◽  
Charlotte Brauer ◽  
Johan Høy Jensen ◽  
Sandra Søgaard Tøttenborg ◽  
Esben Meulengracht Flachs ◽  
...  

Background: Pregnancy can make it difficult to cope with demands at work and may affect women’s well-being. We investigated if a manager-targeted educational intervention reduced demanding occupational exposures and improved the psychosocial work environment and well-being among pregnant employees. Methods: Data came from a cluster randomised trial in Danish hospitals and day-care institutions. Work units were assigned randomly and were non-blinded to the intervention, where managers were either invited to participate in a three-hour seminar addressing job adjustment in pregnancy or assigned to a control group undertaking their usual practice. Self-reported outcomes by pregnant employees at the work units were the proportion of pregnant employees with demanding occupational exposures, good psychosocial work environment and good well-being. Mixed logistic regression was applied in the population of responders and in intention-to-treat analyses using multiple imputations. Results: We included 915 pregnant employees: 451 in the intervention group and 464 in the control group. Of 216 invited managers, 103 (48%) participated in the seminar. A total of 339 (37%) pregnant employees answered the questionnaire. The proportion of pregnant employees who had demanding occupational exposures, good psychosocial work environment and good well-being in the intervention versus the control group were 36% versus 39% (odds ratio (OR)=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57–1.44), 56% versus 59% (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.60–1.71) and 77% versus 73% (OR=1.13, 95% CI 0.68–1.87), respectively. Conclusions: This manager-targeted educational intervention did not reduce demanding occupational exposures and did not improve the psychosocial work environment or the well-being among pregnant employees in hospital and day-care settings. Comprehensive and participatory interventions may be considered in future studies.


Work & Stress ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reiner Rugulies ◽  
Karl B. Christensen ◽  
Marianne Borritz ◽  
Ebbe Villadsen ◽  
Ute Bültmann ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 310-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanda Aronsson ◽  
Susanna Toivanen ◽  
Constanze Leineweber ◽  
Anna Nyberg

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate differences in burnout, self-rated health (SRH) and sickness absence between human service occupations (HSOs) and other occupations, and whether they can be attributed to differences in psychosocial work environment and organizational resources. Methods: Data were derived from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health, an approximately representative sample of the Swedish working population ( n = 4408). Employment in HSOs, psychosocial work environment and organizational resources in 2012 predicted relative risks of sickness absence, burnout and suboptimal SRH in 2014 using modified Poisson regressions. The psychosocial work factors’ and organizational resource variables’ relative importance were estimated by adding them to the models one by one, and with population attributable fractions (PAFs). Results: Employment in HSOs was associated with a higher risk of sickness absence and the risk was explained by psychosocial and organizational factors, particularly high emotional demands, low work-time control and exposure to workplace violence. Employment in HSOs was not associated with burnout after sociodemographic factors were adjusted for, and furthermore not with SRH. A lower risk of suboptimal SRH was found in HSOs than in other occupations with equivalent psychosocial work environment and organizational resources. PAFs indicated that psychosocial work environment and organizational resource improvements could lead to morbidity reductions for all outcomes; emotional demands were more important in HSOs. Conclusions: HSOs had higher risks of sickness absence and burnout than other occupations. The most important work factors to address were high emotional demands, low work-time control, and exposure to workplace violence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document