What positive encounters with healthcare and social insurance staff promotes ability to return to work of long-term sickness absentees?

Abstract

Aims: Previous studies suggest that positive encounters with healthcare and social insurance staff may be important in promoting return to work among long-term sickness absentees. This study aimed to identify more specifically what positive encounters are important for promoting ability to return to work. Methods: A questionnaire about different types of encounters was sent to 10,042 people in Sweden on sick leave for 6–8 months (58% responded). For each positive encounter, we estimated the marginal probability difference (PD) of return to work, adjusting for age, sex, education, sick-leave diagnosis, and the sum score of all other encounters. Adjusting for the other encounters is important since of the observed variables these were the strongest confounders. Results: The positive encounters with both healthcare and social insurance staff significantly associated with promoting ability to return to work after adjusting for the other positive encounters were “Believed in my work capacity” PD=16.9 (95% CI: 12.0, 21.9) and 12.0 (6.3, 17.7), respectively; “Supported my suggestions for solutions”: 9.5 (3.1, 15.9) and 11.6 (5.7, 17.4); “Was supportive and encouraging”: 10.1 (3.6, 16.7) and 7.3 (1.7, 12.8). Additionally, the encounter with healthcare staff most strongly associated with promoting return to work was “Let me take responsibility” 14.8 (7.2, 22.3); and with social security staff: “Showed that she/he liked me” 10.4 (5.4, 15.4). Conclusions: Healthcare and social security staff being supportive, encouraging, and believing in the sickness absentee’s work capacity may be very important for increasing the probability for long-term sickness absentees’ ability to return to work.

Keywords

Return to work sick leave encounter health personnel social security Sweden

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexanderson

Hensing

More and better research needed on sickness absence. Scand J Public Health 2004 10;32:321–3.

OECD. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/9789264088856-en (2010, accessed 8 May 2014).

Alexanderson

Norlund

. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Chapter 12. Future need for research. Scand J Public Health Suppl 2004;63:256–8.

Ostlund

Cedersund

Alexanderson

. “It was really nice to have someone”—lay people with musculoskeletal disorders request supportive relationships in rehabilitation. Scand J Public Health 2001;29:285–91.

Lynöe

Wessel

Olsson

. Respectful encounters and return to work: Empirical study of long-term sick-listed patients’ experiences of Swedish healthcare. BMJ Open 2011;1:e000246.

Östlund

Borg

Wide

. Clients’ perceptions of contact with professionals within healthcare and social insurance offices. Scand J Public Health 2003 8;31:275–82.

Mussener

Svensson

Soderberg

. Encouraging Encounters. Soc Work Health Care 2007;46:71–87.

Upmark

Borg

Alexanderson

. Gender differences in experiencing negative encounters with healthcare: A study of long-term sickness absentees. Scand J Public Health 2007;35:577–84.

Klanghed

Svensson

Alexanderson

. Positive encounters with rehabilitation professionals reported by persons with experience of sickness absence. Work J Prev Assess Rehabil 2004;22:247–54.

10.

Müssener

Festin

Upmark

. Positive experiences of encounters with healthcare and social insurance professionals among people on long-term sick leave. J Rehabil Med 2008;40:805–11.

11.

Svensson

Müssener

Alexanderson

. Pride, empowerment, and return to work: On the significance of promoting positive social emotions among sickness absentees. Work J Prev Assess Rehabil 2006;27:57–65.

12.

Lumley

. Complex Surveys: A Guide to Analysis Using R. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2010.

13.

Robins

Hernán

MÁ

Brumback

. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000;11:550–60.

14.

Sato

Matsuyama

. Marginal structural models as a tool for standardization. Epidemiology 2003;14:680–86.

15.

Van der Ark

. Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw, 20(i11), http://ideas.repec.org/a/jss/jstsof/20i11.html (accessed 9 May 2014).

16.

Petersen

Porter

Gruber

. Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption. Stat Methods Med Res 2012;21:31–54.

17.

King

Zeng

. The Dangers of extreme counterfactuals. Polit Anal 2006;14:131–59.

18.

King

Zeng

. When can history be our guide? The pitfalls of counterfactual inference. Int Stud Q 2007;183–210.

19.

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013, http://www.R-project.org (accessed 16 September 2015).

20.

Hansen

Edlund

Henningsson

. Factors relevant to a return to work: A multivariate approach. Work J Prev Assess Rehabil. 2006;26:179–90.

21.

Allebeck

Mastekaasa

. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Chapter 5. Risk factors for sick leave - general studies. Scand J Public Health Suppl 2004;63:49–108.

22.

Alexanderson

Norlund

. Chapter 1. Aim, background, key concepts, regulations, and current statistics. Scand J Public Health 2004;32(63 Suppl.):12–30.

23.

VanderWeele

. On the relative nature of overadjustment and unnecessary adjustment. Epidemiology 2009;20:496–9.