Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:45:09.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Designing a Process Evaluation to Examine Mechanisms of Change in Return to Work Outcomes Following Participation in Occupational Rehabilitation: A Theory-Driven and Interactive Research Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2018

Ulrik Gensby ,
Tore Norendal Braathen ,
Chris Jensen  and
Monica Eftedal
Ulrik Gensby*
Affiliation:
National Advisory Unit on Occupational Rehabilitation, Rauland, Norway Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Helix Competence Centre, Linköping University, Sweden Team Arbejdsliv ApS, Copenhagen, Denmark
Tore Norendal Braathen
Affiliation:
National Advisory Unit on Occupational Rehabilitation, Rauland, Norway Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Telemark, Norway
Chris Jensen
Affiliation:
National Advisory Unit on Occupational Rehabilitation, Rauland, Norway Department of Public Health and General Practice, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Monica Eftedal
Affiliation:
National Advisory Unit on Occupational Rehabilitation, Rauland, Norway
*
Address for correspondence: Ulrik Gensby, Team Arbejdsliv ApS, Høffdingsvej 22, 1 sal. 2500 Valby, Denmark. E-mail: uge@teamarbejdsliv.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a growing consensus that professional action in occupational rehabilitation should be research-based, and that practice-based knowledge is needed to achieve contextual insight and new theoretical understanding. Few study design examples exist to help inform an evaluation plan and develop research-practice interactions to examine process complexity of targeted occupational rehabilitation programs. This study design article is a proposal on a theory-driven and interactive research methodology for a process evaluation of a pragmatic intervention trial, known as STAiR. The aim of the process evaluation is to examine the delivery and implementation of an inpatient and an outpatient occupational rehabilitation program, and explore active mechanisms pertaining to patient experiences of the return to work (RTW) process. Qualitative and interactive data collection methods will include (a) participant observation of program setting and activities; (b) participatory dialogue conferences with program providers to facilitate initial logic modelling; (d) individual patient interviews at program intake and follow up; and (d) focus groups with rehabilitation teams and external stakeholders. The qualitative data will be supplemented with description of program activities and patient questionnaires. Program logic modelling is suggested to inform a logic analysis of how expected RTW outcomes and delivery of program activities are aligned and how contextual characteristics may clarify differences in achieved RTW outcomes. The proposed process evaluation approach may inform future design discussions and theoretical understanding, and it is expected that the applied knowledge gained through this study may help rehabilitation professionals better navigate potential challenges in clinical evaluation efforts.

Keywords

study designprocess evaluationinteractive researchprogram theorylogic modellingoccupational rehabilitationreturn to work
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Disability Management , Volume 13 , 2018 , e1
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aasdahl, L., Pape, K., Vasseljen, O., Johnsen, R., Gismervik, S., Jensen, C., Fimland, M.S. (2017). Effects of inpatient multicomponent occupational rehabilitation versus less comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation on somatic and mental health: Secondary outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27 (3), 456–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arends, I., Bültmann, U., Nielsen, K., Van Rhenen, W., de Boer, M.R., Van der Klink, J.J.L. (2014). Process evaluation of a problem solving intervention to prevent recurrent sickness absence in workers with common mental disorders. Social Science & Medicine, 100, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aust, B., Helverskov, T., Nielsen, M.B., Bjorner, J.B., Rugulies, R., Nielsen, K., . . . Poulsen, O.M. (2012). The Danish national return to work program: Aims, content and design of a the process and effect evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 38 (2), 120–133.Google Scholar
Aust, B., Nielsen, M.B., Grundtvig, G., Buchardt, H.L., Ferm, L., Andersen, I., . . . Poulsen, O.M. (2015). Implementation of the Danish return-to-work program: process evaluation of a trial in 21 Danish municipalities. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 41 (6), 529–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2009). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Blamey, A.A.M., MacMillan, F., Fitzsimons, C.F., Shaw, R., Mutrie, N. (2013). Using program theory to strengthen research protocol and intervention design within an RCT of a walking intervention. Evaluation, 19 (1), 5–23.Google Scholar
Brouselle, A., & Champagne, F. (2011). Program theory evaluation: Logic analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34 (1), 69–78.Google Scholar
Brämberg, E.B., Klinga, C., Jensen, I., Busch, H., Bergström, G., Brommels, M., Hansson, J. (2015). Implementation of evidence-based rehabilitation for non-specific back pain and common mental health problems: A process evaluation of a nationwide initiative. BMC Health Services Research, 15, 79-.Google Scholar
Braathen, T.N. (2015). What works in occupational rehabilitation: Measurements and perceptions of return to work in Norway. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Braathen, T.N., Eftedal, M., Tellnes, G., Haugli, L. (2015). Work inclusion: self-perceived change in work ability among persons in occupational rehabilitation. Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion(6), 1–25.Google Scholar
Bültmann, U., Sherson, D., Olsen, J., Hansen, C.L., Lund, T., Kilsgaard, J. (2009). Coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 1 (19), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byng, R., Norman, I., Redfern, S., Jones, R. (2008). Exposing the key functions of a complex intervention for shared care in mental health: case study of a process evaluation. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 274–284.Google Scholar
Contandriopoulos, D., Brousselle, A., Dubois, C.A., Perroux, M., Beaulieu, M.D., Brault, I., . . ., Sansgter-Gormley, E. (2015). A process-based framework to guide nurse practitioners integration into primary healthcare teams: results from a logic analysis. BMC Public Health Services Research, 15, 78-.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooksy, L.J., Gill, P., Kelly, P.A. (2001). The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24 (2), 119–128.Google Scholar
Coryn, C.L.S., Noakes, L.A., Westine, C.D., Schröter, D.C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32 (2), 199–226.Google Scholar
Costa-Black, K. (2013). Core components of return to work interventions. In Loisel, P., Anema, J.R. (Ed.), Handbook of work disability: Prevention and management. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Durand, M.J., Vachon, B., Loisel, P., Berthelette, D. (2003). Constructing the program impact theory for an evidence-based work rehabilitation program for workers with low back pain. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 21 (3), 233–242.Google Scholar
Eftedal, M., Tveito, T.H., Gensby, U., Islam, K.M., Lie, S.A., Aasland, G., . . ., Jensen, C. (in press). Comparing effects of two interdisciplinary occupational rehabilitation programs for employees on sick leave: Design of a pragmatic clinical intervention trial.Google Scholar
Ellström, P.E. (2008). Knowledge creation through interactive research: A learning approach. Paper presented at the The ECER Conference, Gøteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Fetters, M.D., Curry, L.A., Creswell, J.W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48 (6), 2134–2156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fimland, M.S., Vasseljen, O., Gismervik, S., Rise, M.B., Halsteinli, V., Jacobsen, H.B., . . . , Johnson, R. (2014). Occupational rehabilitation programs for musculoskeletal pain and common mental health disorders: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 14, 368-.Google Scholar
Frank, A.O., & Sawney, P. (2003). Vocational rehabilitation. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96 (11), 522–523.Google Scholar
Funnel, S.C., & Rogers, P.J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Gittell, J.H., & Weiss, L. (2004). Coordination networks witihn and across organizations: A multi-level framework. Journal of Management Studies, 41 (1), 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenhar, L.M., Lamontagne, A.D., Katz, T., Heaney, C., Landbergis, P. (2001). The intervention research process in occupational safety and health: An overview from the national occupational research agenda intervention effectiveness research team. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 43 (7), 616–622.Google Scholar
GoldsteinN.E.S.K., K. N.E.S.K., K. Leff, S.S., Lochman, J.E. (2012). Guidelines for adapting manualized interventions for new target populations: A step-wise approach using anger management as a model. Clinical Psychology: A Publication of the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association, 19 (4), 385–401.Google Scholar
Grant, A., Treweek, S., Dreischulte, T., Foy, R., Guthrie, B. (2013). Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials, 14 (1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gredig, D. (2011). From research to practice: Research-based intervention development in social work: Developing practice through cooperative knowledge production. European Journal of Social Work, 14 (1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustavson, B., & Engelstad, P. (1986). The design of conferences and the evolving role of democratic dialogue in changing working life. Human Relations, 39 (2), 101–116.Google Scholar
Hart, T., & Ehde, D.M. (2015). Defining the treatment targets and active ingredients of rehabilitation: Implications for rehabilitation psychology. Rehabilitation Psychology, 60 (2), 126–135.Google Scholar
Haugli, L., Maeland, S., Magnussen, L.H. (2011). What facilitates return to work? Patients experiences three years after occupational rehabilitation. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21 (4), 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Oxman, A.D. (2009). Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: Methodological study. BMJ, 339 (No 7723), 732–739.Google Scholar
Loisel, P., Buchbinder, R., Hazard, R., Keller, R., Scheel, I., van Tulder, M., Webster, B. (2005). Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: The challenge of implementing evidence. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15 (4), 507–524.Google Scholar
MacEachen, E., Clarke, J., Franche, R.L., Irvin, E. (2006). Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32 (4), 257–269.Google Scholar
Martin, M.H.T., Nielsen, M.B.D., Petersen, S.M.A., Jakobsen, L.M., Rugulies, R. (2012). Implementation of a coordinated and tailored return-to-work intervention for employees with mental health problems. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22 (3), 427–436.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health and Care Services. (2011). Regulation on habilitation and rehabilitation [Forskrift om habilitering og rehabilitering, individuell plan og koordinator]. In (Vol. 13). Oslo, Norway: AuthorGoogle Scholar
Moore, G., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Cooper, C., Hardeman, W., Moore, L., O'Cathain, A., Tinati, T., Wight, D., Baird, J. (2014). Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: The need for guidance. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 68 (2), 101–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, G., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Cooper, C., . . ., Baird, J (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 350, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murtagh, M.J., Thomson, R.G., May, C.R., Rapley, T., Heaven, B.R., Graham, R.H., . . . , Eccles, M.P. (2007). Qualitative methods in randomised trials: The role of an integrated qualitative process evaluation in providing evidence to discontinue the intervention in one arm of a trial of a desicion support tool. BMJ Quality & Safety, 16 (3), 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, K.Å., & Svensson, L. (2006). Action and Interactive research: Beyond practice and theory. Netherlands: Shaker Publishing.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K., & Randall, R. (2012). Opening the black box: Presenting a model for evaluating organizational-level interventions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22 (5), 601–617.Google Scholar
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Holten, A.L., & González, E.R. (2010). Conducting organizational-level occupational health interventions: What works? Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 24 (3), 234–259.Google Scholar
Norlund, A., Ropponen, A., Alexanderson, K. (2009). Multidisciplinary interventions: review of studies of return to work after rehabilitation for low back pain. Journal of Rehabilitative Medicine, 41 (3), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Brien, B.C., Harris, I.B., Beckman, T.J., Reed, D.A., Cook, D.A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.Google Scholar
Oakley, A., Strange, V., Bonell, C., Allen, E., Stephenson, J., RIPPLE Study Team. (2006). Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ, 332, 413–416.Google Scholar
Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation research. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Rey, L., Brousselle, A., Dedobbeleer, N. (2012). Logic analysis: Testing program theory to better evaluate complex interventions. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26 (3), 61–89.Google Scholar
Rise, M.B., Gismervik, S.Ø., Johnsen, R., Fimland, M.S. (2015). Sick listed persons experiences with taking part in an inpatient ocupational rehabilitation program based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A qualitative focus group study. BMC Health Services Research, 15, 526–538.Google Scholar
Rise, M.B., Skagseth, M., Klevanger, N.E., Aasdahl, L., Borchgrevink, P., Jensen, C., . . . Fimland, M.S. (2018). Design of a study evaluating the effects, health, economics, and stakeholder perspectives of a multi-component occupational rehabilitation program with an added workplace intervention: A study protocol. BMC Public Health, 18, 219–230.Google Scholar
Sanjek, R. (1990). Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, R.P., Evans, M.H., Joshi, P. (2005). Developing a process evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: A how to guide. Health Promotion Practice, 6 (2), 134–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholz, R.W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. London: Sage Publications Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckler, A., & Linnan, L. (2002). Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Fransisco: US: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Stetler, C.B., Damschroder, L.J., Helfrich, C.D., Hagedorn, H.J. (2011). A guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implementation Science, 6 (1), 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Advisory Board for the National Centre for Occupational Rehabilitation. (2011). Quality measures for occupational rehabilitation in specialist health care. Rauland, Norway: Author.Google Scholar
Treweek, S., & Zwarenstein, M. (2009). Making trials matter: Pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials, 10 (1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Beurden, K.M., Vermeulen, S.J., Anema, J.R., Van der Beek, A.J. (2012). A participatory return-to-work program for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders: A process evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22 (1), 127–140.Google Scholar
Van Eerd, D., Ferron, E.M., D'Elia, T., Morgan, D., Ziesmann, F., Amick, B.C. III (2018). Process evaluation of a participatory organizational change program to reduce musculoskeletal and slip, trip and fall injuries. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 42–53.Google Scholar
Waddell, G., & Burton, KA. (2004). Concepts of rehabilitation for the management of common health problems. London: UK: TSO.Google Scholar
Wagner, S., White, M., Schultz, I., Murray, E., Bradley, S.M., Hsu, V., . . . , Schulz, W. (2014). Modifiable worker risk factors contributing to workplace absence: a stakeholder-centred best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 49 (4), 541–558.Google Scholar
White, M., Wagner, S., Schultz, I.Z., Murray, E., Bradley, S.M., Hsu, V., . . . , Schulz, W. (2013). Modifiable workplace risk factors contributing to workplace absence across health conditions: A stakeholder-centered best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 45 (4), 1–12.Google Scholar
Wierenga, D., Engbers, L.H., Van Empelen, P., Duijts, S., Hildebrandt, V.H., Van Mechelen, W. (2013). What is actually measured in process evaluations for worksite health promotion programs: a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 13, 1190–1206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed