Suppr超能文献

解决问题干预预防常见精神障碍工人反复缺勤的过程评估。

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

机构信息

Department of Health Sciences, Community & Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, A. Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands.

National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

Soc Sci Med. 2014 Jan;100:123-32. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.041. Epub 2013 Nov 16.

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.

摘要

常见精神障碍(CMDs)是病假的主要原因。20%至 30%因 CMD 休病假后重返工作岗位的工人会再次出现病假。我们开发了一项名为“激发健康参与和预防复发(SHARP)-工作”的干预措施,这是一种由职业医生(OP)实施的解决问题的干预措施,旨在预防荷兰这一工人群体的反复病假。在一项集群随机对照试验中,我们进行了一项过程评估,以(1)评估 SHARP-工作干预措施是否按照方案实施,并且与对照组的治疗有所不同,以及(2)调查干预措施的关键要素与效果结果(即反复病假)之间的关系。我们收集了干预组和对照组在招募、覆盖范围、提供剂量、接受剂量、保真度、背景和满意度方面的数据。反复病假的数据是通过合作的职业健康服务的登记系统收集的。该研究在荷兰进行,2010 年至 2012 年间,共有 154 名 OP 和 158 名参与者参与。与对照组相比,干预组的参与者更频繁地与 OP 进行两次或两次以上的咨询(优势比[OR] = 3.2,95%置信区间[CI] = 1.2-8.8),并且完成了更多的作业(OR = 33.8,95%CI = 10.4-109.5),这与干预方案中的建议一致。OP 和参与者对干预措施感到满意,并认为它具有适用性。几个单独的干预组件与效果结果有关。过程评估表明,SHARP-工作干预措施对大多数参与者来说是按照方案进行的,并且受到 OP 和参与者的好评。此外,干预措施与对照组的治疗有所不同。总体而言,这些结果为在实践中实施干预措施提供了支持。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验