The number of older workers will expand during the next decades. Older workers have
more long-term health problems and related limitations.
OBJECTIVE:
This study examined supportive actions provided in occupational healthcare services to
older workers after vocational rehabilitation. An additional purpose was to explore
occupational healthcare professionals’ views on how to realize and improve adequate
support activities.
METHODS:
Qualitative and quantitative methods were used, including a postal questionnaire and
focus group discussions. Sixty-seven occupational healthcare service units participated
in the postal questionnaire. Eight occupational healthcare professionals participated in
two focus group discussions. The qualitative data was analyzed using qualitative content
analysis.
RESULTS:
The qualitative analysis resulted in one theme (Act with respect), and four categories
(Need for cooperation, Collaborative resources of involved stakeholders, Individual
needs for support, and Gender as homogenous and separate groups). Quantitative results
revealed that the workers’ initiative strongly influenced the support carried out.
Recommendations from the rehabilitation clinic were almost always considered when
deciding on supportive actions. Focus group discussions brought up gender differences
especially highlighted in the category Gender as homogenous and separate groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
Appropriate support of older workers requires cooperation between involved
stakeholders, including occupational healthcare services. Provided support should be
based on individual needs, but a mutual practice of determining needed support is
requested.
IlmarinenJ.
Aging workers. Occup Environ Med.
2001;58(8):546–552.
3.
SturessonM, EdlundC, Fjellman-WiklundA,
Hansen
FalkdalA, BernspångB.
Work ability as obscure, complex and unique: Views of Swedish
occupational therapists and physicians. Work.
2013;45:117–128.
4.
TenglandPA.
A qualitative approach to assessing work ability.
Work.
2013;44:393–404.
5.
TenglandPA.
The Concept of Work Abilty. J Occup
Rehabil.
2011;21:275–285.
6.
IlmarinenJ. Towards
a longer worklife. Ageing and the quality of worklife in the European Union.
Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational
Health, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health;
2006.
7.
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, Office of the European
Union. Increasing the value of age. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union; 2015. Cadefop
research paper; No 44.
8.
BhattacharyaJ,
ChoudhryK, LakdawallaD.
Chronic disease and severe disability among working-age
populations. Medical Care.
2008;46(1):92–100.
9.
LindJ, ToikkaT.
Työkyvyltään merkittävästi heikentyneiden ammatillinen kuntoutuminen
(Vocational rehabilitation when significantly reduced work ability) (In
Finnish). Helsinki: The Social
Insurance Institution in Finland; 2010.
10.
LindJ, ToikkaT, HeinoP,
Autti-RämöI.
Aslak- ja Tyk-kuntoutujien työuran jatkuminen rekisteritietojen
perusteella (Continued work carrier for clients in Aslak- and TYK-rehabilitation based
on registry data) (In Finnish). Helsinki:
The Social Insurance Institution in Finland;
2013.
11.
ShemeikkaR, AhoS,
JokinenE, JärnefeltN, KaakinenM, et
al. Prolonging working careers requires cooperation and sense of
community. Publications of the Government’s analysis, assessment
and research activities 38/2017. Helsinki:
Prime Minister’s Office;
2017.
12.
VilkkumaaI.
Tätäkin voisi tutkia. Kuntoutuksen tulosten seuranta. (This could also be
explored. Monitoring results of rehabilitation). (In Finnish).
[Internet]. The latest news in rehabilitation.
Helsinki:
Kuntoutusportti; 2010. [uppdated 2010 Aug
6; cited 2014 Jan 12] Available from: https://kuntoutusportti.fi/kuntoutuksen-tulosten-seuranta/
13.
PattonMQ.
Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative
analysis. Health Serv Res.
1999;35(4):1189–1208.
14.
CarterRE, LubinskyJ, DomholdtE.
Rehabilitation Research. Principles and
Applications. 4th ed. St
Louis: Elsevier Saunders;
2005.
MasadehMA.
Focus group: Reviews and practices.
IJAST.
2012;2(10):63–68.
17.
GraneheimUH, LundmanB.
Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures
and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ
Today.
2004;24(2):105–112.
18.
GraneheimUH, LindgrenB-M, LundmanB.
Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion
paper. Nurse EducToday.
2017;56:29–34.
19.
LynöeN, WesselM, OlssonD, AlexandersonK, HelgessonG.
Respectful encounters and return to work: Empirical study of long-term
sick-listed patients’ experiences of Swedish healthcare. BMJ
Open. 2011; e000246.
20.
AhrbergY, LandstadBJ, BergrothA, EkholmJ.
Desire, longing and vanity: Emotions behind successful return to work for
women on long-term sick leave. Work.
2010;37(2):167–177.
21.
LynöeN, WesselM, OlssonD, AlexandersonK, HelgessonG.
Does feeling respected influence return to work?Cross-sectional study on sick-listed patients’ experiences of encounters with
social insurance office staff. BMC Public Health.
2013;13:268.
22.
MûssenerU, StåhlC,
SöderbergE.
Does the quality of encounters affect return to work?Lay people describe their experiences of meeting various professionals during
their rehabilitation process. Work.
2015;52:447–455.
23.
NorlundS, Fjellman-WiklundA,
NordinM, StenlundT, AhlgrenC.
Personal resources and support when regaining the ability to work: An
interview study with exhaustion disorder patients. J Occup
Rehabil.
2013;23:270–279.
24.
DurandMJ, CorbiéreM, CoutuMF, ReinharzD, AlbertV. A
review of best work-absence management and return-to-work practices for workers with
musculoskeletal or common mental disorders. Work.
2014;48:579–589.
25.
BrouwerS, RenemanM, BultmannU, van der
KlinkJ, GroothoffJ.
A prospective study of return to work across health conditions: Perceived
work attitude, self-efficacy and perceived social support. J
Occup Rehabil.
2010;20:104–112.
26.
Juvonen-Posti,P.
Work-related rehabilitation for strengthening working
careers. A multiperspective and mixed methods study of its
mechanisms. [dissertation on the Internet].
Oulu: University of Oulu;
2018 [cited 2018 May 8]. Available from: http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789526219271.pdf
27.
LiukkoJ, KuuvaN.
Cooperation of return-to-work professionals: The challenges of
multi-actor work disability management. Disabil
Rehabil. 2016;
1466–1473.
28.
SturessonM, EdlundC, FalkdalAH, BernspångB.
Healthcare encounters and return to work: A qualitative study on
sick-listed patients’ experiences. Prim Health Care Res
Dev.
2014;15:464–475.
29.
WagnerS, WhiteM,
SchultzI, MurrayE, BradleySM, HsuV,
et al. Modifiable worker risk factors contributing to
workplace absence: A stakeholder-centred best-evidence synthesis of systematic
reviews. Work.
2014;49(4):541–558.
30.
LydellM, HildinghC, MånssonJ, MarklundB, GrahnB.
Thoughts and feelings of future working life as a predictor of return to
work: A combined qualitative and quantitative study of sick-listed persons with
musculoskeletal disorders. Disabil Rehabil.
2011;33(13-14):1262–1271.
31.
LabriolaM, LundT,
ChristensenKB,
AlbertsenK, BultmannU, JensenJN, et
al. Does self-efficacy predict return-to-work after sickness
absence? A prospective study among 930 employees with sickness absence for three weeks
or more. Work.
2007;29(3):233–238.
32.
NigatuYT, LiuY,
UppalM, McKinneyS, GillisK, RaoS,
et al. Prognostic factors for return to work of employees
with common mental disorders: A meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol.
2017;52(10):1205–1215.
33.
BlackO, KeegelT, SimMR,
CollieA, SmithP.
The effect of self-efficacy on return-to-work outcomes for workers with
psychological or upper-body musculoskeletal injuries: A review of the
literature. J Occup Rehabil.
2018;28(1):16–27.
34.
FrancheRL, KrauseN.
Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: Conceptualizing
the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace and insurance
factors. J Occup Rehabil.
2002;12(4):233–256.
35.
ProchaskaJO, ReddingCA, EversKE. The
transtheoretical model and stages of change. In: GlanzK,
RimerBK, LewisFM, editors.
Health behavior and health education. Theory,
research and practice. 3rd ed. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass A Wiley Imprint;
2002. p. 99–120.
36.
ProchaskaJ, DiClementeC.
Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative
model of change. J Cons Clin Phychol.
1983;51(3):390–395.
37.
BanduraA.
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am
Psychol.
1982;37(2):122–147.
38.
FrancheRL, CorbiéreM, LeeH,
BreslinFC, HepburnCG.
The readiness for return-to-work (RRTW) scale: Development and validation
of self-report staging scale in lost-time claimants with musculoskeletal
disorders. J Occup Rehabil.
2007;17:450–472.
39.
SormunenE, YlisassiH, Mäenpää-MoilanenE,
RemesJ, MartimoK-P.
Yhteistyö tuki- ja liikuntaelinvaivoihin liittyvän työkyvyttömyyden ehkäisyssä
(Co-operation to prevent work disability related to musculoskeletal diseases) (In
Finnish). Helsinki: Finnish
Institute of Occupational Health; 2017.
40.
The Social Insurance Institution of Finland. FPA:s standard för
rehabilitering i öppen vård. KIILA-rehabilitering. (The standard
of rehabilitation by SII. KIILA-rehabilitation). (In Swedish).
Helsinki: The Social Insurance
Institution of Finland; 2015 Aug 20. Available from:
http://www.kela.fi/documents/10180/2272284/KIILA+kuntoutus+160308++lopullinen+sv.pdf
41.
Seppänen-JärveläR,
SyrjäV, Juvonen-PostiP,
PesonenS, LaaksonenM, TuusaM,
et al. Cooperation and individual choices on the rehabilitation
path. Case study of development project on rehabilitation into work.
Helsinki: The Social Insurance
Institution of Finland; 2015.
42.
AndersenMF, NielsenKM, BrinkmannS.
Meta-synthesis of qualitative research on return to work among employees
with common mental disorders. Scand J Work Environ
Health.
2012;38:93–104.
43.
CampbellP, Wynne-JonesG, MullerS, DunnK.
The influence of employment social support for risk prognosis in
nonspecific back pain: A systematic review and critical synthesis.
Int Arch Occupat Environ Health. 2012;
1–19.
44.
AasRW, EllingsenKL, LindoeP, MollerA.
Leadership qualities in the return to work process: A content
analysis. J Occup Rehabil.
2008;18:335–346.
45.
HoefsmitN, HoukesI, NijhuisF.
Environmental and personal factors that support return-to-work: A
qualitative study using the ICF as a framework. Work.
2014;48(2):203–215.
46.
AhlsenB, BondevikH, MengshoelAM, SolbraekkeKN.
(Un)doing gender in rehabilitation context: A narrative analysis of
gender and self in stories of chronic muscle pain. Disabil
Rehabil.
2014;36(5):359–366.
47.
AhlsenB, MengshoelAM, SolbraekkeKN.
Troubled bodies - troubled men: A narrative analysis of men’s stories of
chronic muscle pain. Disabil Rehabil.
2012;34(21):1765–1773.
48.
MunirF, PryceJ,
HaslamC, LekaS,
GriffithsA.
Gender differences in managing chronic pain illness at work: Exploring
predictors for disclosure. J Vocat Rehab.
2006;25:173–180.
49.
AhlgrenC, Fjellman-WiklundA,
HambergK, JohanssonEE, StålnackeBM.
The meanings given to gender in studies on multimodal rehabilitation for
patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain - a literature review.
Disabil Rehabil.
2016;38(23):2255–2270.
50.
SuominenS.
Maamme ruotsin- ja suomenkielisen väestön terveyserot (The health
differences between Swedish and Finnish speakers in Finland) (In
Finnish). Duodecim.
2014;130(2):161–167.
