National Centre for Work and Rehabilitation, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping 58183, Sweden.
BMC Public Health. 2013 Apr 8;13:310. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-310.
In 2010, the Swedish government introduced a system of subsidies for occupational health (OH) service interventions, as a part in a general policy promoting early return to work. The aim of this study was to analyse the implementation of these subsidies, regarding how they were used and perceived.
The study was carried out using a mixed-methods approach, and comprises material from six sub-studies: a register study of the use of the subsidies, one survey to OH service providers, one survey to employers, one document analysis of the documentation from interventions, interviews with stakeholders, and case interviews with actors involved in coordinated interventions.
The subsidized services were generally perceived as positive but were modestly used. The most extensive subsidy--for coordinated interventions--was rarely used. Employers and OH service providers reported few or no effects on services and contracts. OH service providers explained the modest use in terms of already having less bureaucratic routines in place, where applying for subsidies would involve additional costs. Information about the subsidies was primarily communicated to OH service providers, while employers were not informed.
The study highlights the complexity of promoting interventions through financial incentives, since their implementation requires that they are perceived by the stakeholders involved as purposeful, manageable and cost-effective. There are inherent political challenges in influencing stakeholders who act on a free market, in that the impact of policies may be limited, unless they are enforced by law.
2010 年,瑞典政府引入了职业健康(OH)服务干预补贴制度,作为一项旨在促进尽早重返工作岗位的总体政策的一部分。本研究旨在分析这些补贴的实施情况,包括其使用方式和被感知的情况。
本研究采用混合方法,包括六项子研究的材料:补贴使用情况的登记研究、一项针对 OH 服务提供者的调查、一项针对雇主的调查、一项针对干预措施文件的文件分析、对利益相关者的访谈以及对参与协调干预的行为者的案例访谈。
补贴服务普遍被认为是积极的,但使用程度有限。最广泛的补贴——用于协调干预——很少被使用。雇主和 OH 服务提供者报告说,服务和合同几乎没有或没有效果。OH 服务提供者将补贴的适度使用解释为已经有较少的官僚程序,申请补贴会涉及额外的成本。有关补贴的信息主要传达给 OH 服务提供者,而没有告知雇主。
本研究强调了通过财政激励措施来促进干预措施的复杂性,因为其实施需要让相关利益相关者认为它们是有目的、可管理和具有成本效益的。在影响在自由市场上运作的利益相关者方面存在固有的政治挑战,除非政策得到法律的强制实施,否则政策的影响可能是有限的。