Maarten Butink1,2, Desiree Dona3, Annelies Boonen4, Marlies Peters3, Vera Baadjou5, Theo Senden3, Angelique de Rijk6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. m.butink@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Department of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. m.butink@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 3. Department of Human Resources/Occupational Health Services, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Adelante Rehabilitation Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands and Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Duboisdomein 30, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with a chronic disease are more vulnerable in the labor market, and work-related support in clinical care would enhance the timely support greatly needed in each phase of their working life. This paper describes the development of a generic stay-at-work intervention to provide work-related support in clinical care to patients with a chronic disease. METHODS: Steps 1-4 of Intervention Mapping (IM) were combined with action research principles. A needs assessment (Step 1) involved the project group formation, a literature review, qualitative studies with healthcare professionals (HCPs; n = 9) and patients (n = 10), consultation with financial staff and testing, and resulted in objectives (Step 2). Guided by methods and applications (Step 3), the intervention was developed, tested and finalized (Step 4). RESULTS: The needs assessment revealed the importance of behavioral change in HCPs, including changing attitude, self-efficacy, and social influence. For that purpose, a pathway and training sessions were developed. Testing these unveiled the need for practical tools and intervision. The final intervention comprises a care pathway as part of working routines, including screening, risk stratification, and tailored support. Practical tools, training sessions, and intervision for HCPs were developed. CONCLUSIONS: Combining IM with action research principles resulted in a generic stay-at-work intervention in clinical care via behavioral change in HCPs. A generic care pathway, practical tools, training sessions, and intervision were developed. More specific alignment to specific patient groups is possible. To implement the intervention in another hospital, the local context, (financial) resources, and the national legislation should be considered.
BACKGROUND: Patients with a chronic disease are more vulnerable in the labor market, and work-related support in clinical care would enhance the timely support greatly needed in each phase of their working life. This paper describes the development of a generic stay-at-work intervention to provide work-related support in clinical care to patients with a chronic disease. METHODS: Steps 1-4 of Intervention Mapping (IM) were combined with action research principles. A needs assessment (Step 1) involved the project group formation, a literature review, qualitative studies with healthcare professionals (HCPs; n = 9) and patients (n = 10), consultation with financial staff and testing, and resulted in objectives (Step 2). Guided by methods and applications (Step 3), the intervention was developed, tested and finalized (Step 4). RESULTS: The needs assessment revealed the importance of behavioral change in HCPs, including changing attitude, self-efficacy, and social influence. For that purpose, a pathway and training sessions were developed. Testing these unveiled the need for practical tools and intervision. The final intervention comprises a care pathway as part of working routines, including screening, risk stratification, and tailored support. Practical tools, training sessions, and intervision for HCPs were developed. CONCLUSIONS: Combining IM with action research principles resulted in a generic stay-at-work intervention in clinical care via behavioral change in HCPs. A generic care pathway, practical tools, training sessions, and intervision were developed. More specific alignment to specific patient groups is possible. To implement the intervention in another hospital, the local context, (financial) resources, and the national legislation should be considered.