Acceptability and Feasibility of a Shared Decision-Making Model in Work Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Stakeholders’ Perspectives

  • Marie-France Coutu
  • France Légaré
  • Marie-José Durand
  • Dawn Stacey
  • Marie-Elise Labrecque
  • Marc Corbière
  • Lesley Bainbridge
Article

Abstract

Purpose To establish the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a shared decision-making (SDM) model in work rehabilitation. Methods We used a sequential mixed-methods design with diverse stakeholder groups (representatives of private and public employers, insurers, and unions, as well as workers having participated in a work rehabilitation program). First, a survey using a self-administered questionnaire enabled stakeholders to rate their level of agreement with the model’s acceptability and feasibility and propose modifications, if necessary. Second, eight focus groups representing key stakeholders (n = 34) and four one-on-one interviews with workers were conducted, based on the questionnaire results. For each stakeholder group, we computed the percentage of agreement with the model’s acceptability and feasibility and performed thematic analyses of the transcripts. Results Less than 50% of each stakeholder group initially agreed with the overall acceptability and feasibility of the model. Stakeholders proposed 37 modifications to the objectives, 17 to the activities, and 39 to improve the model’s feasibility. Based on in-depth analysis of the transcripts, indicators were added to one objective, an interview guide was added as proposed by insurers to ensure compliance of the SDM process with insurance contract requirements, and one objective was reformulated. Conclusion Despite initially low agreement with the model’s acceptability on the survey, subsequent discussions led to three minor changes and contributed to the model’s ultimate acceptability and feasibility. Later steps will involve assessing the extent of implementation of the model in real rehabilitation settings to see if other modifications are necessary before assessing its impact.

Keywords

Rehabilitation Shared decision making Work Injuries People with disabilities Chronic pain 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Fonds de Recherche Québec – Santé and the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travail.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee responsible for experiments on human subjects (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Informed Consent

Informed consent for inclusion in the study was obtained from all patients.

References

  1. 1.
    Theis K, Roblin D, Helmick C, Luo R. Prevalence and causes of work disability among working-age US adults, 2011–2013, NHIS. Disabil Health J. 2017;11(1):108–115.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention: the new paradigm of management of occupational back pain. Dis Manag Health Outcomes. 2001;9(7):351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):525–542.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coutu MF, Baril R, Durand MJ, Côté D, Cadieux G. Clinician-patient agreement about the work disability problem of patients having persistent pain: why it matters. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(1):82–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coutu M-F, Légaré F, Durand M-J, Corbière M, Stacey D, Bainbridge L, et al. Operationalizing a shared decision making model for work rehabilitation programs: a consensus process. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):141–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chou R, Loeser JD, Owens DK, Rosenquist RW, Atlas SJ, Baisden J, et al. Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain. Spine 2009;34(10):1066–1077.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Connor AM, Jacobsen MJ. Ottawa decision support tutorial: training practitioners in decision support. Ottawa Health Research Institute; 2007 [cited 2007 July]; Available from: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/ODST/.
  9. 9.
    Luborsky L, Crits-Christoph P, Alexander L, Margolis M, Cohen M. Two helping alliance methods for predicting outcomes of psychotherapy. A counting signs vs. a global rating method. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1983;171(8):480–491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coutu M-F, Légaré F, Durand M-J, Corbière M, Stacey D, Loisel P, et al. Fostering shared decision making by occupational therapists and workers involved in accidents resulting in persistent musculoskeletal disorders: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coutu M-F, Légaré F, Stacey D, Durand M-J, Corbière M, Bainbridge L, et al. Occupational therapists’ shared decision-making behaviors with patients having persistent pain in a work rehabilitation context: a cross-sectional study. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(7):864–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coutu MF, Légaré F, DM J, Corbière M, Stacey D, Bainbridge L, et al. Programme de prise de décision entre l’ergothérapeute et le travailleur ayant une incapacité due à un trouble musculosquelettique persistant [Decision-making program between the occupational therapist and the worker with a disability due to a persistent musculoskeletal disorder]: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). 2016. Report No.: R-896.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gervais M, Pépin G, Carrière M. Triage ou comment adapter une technique de recherche à l’intervention clinique en ergothérapie (Triage or how to adapt a research technique to clinical intervention in occupational therapy). Revue Québécoise d’Ergothérapie. 2000;9(1):11–15.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB. Using logic models. In: Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE, editors. Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2004. pp. 7–32.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rossi PH, Freeman HE. Monitoring program process and performance. In: Rossi PH, Freeman HE, Lipsey MW, editors. Evaluation-a systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1999. pp. 191–232.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muhr T. ATLAS/ti–A prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qual Sociol. 1991;14(4):349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landry R. L’analyse de contenu [Content analysis]. In: Gauthier B, editor. Recherche sociale de la problématique à la collecte de données [Social research of the problematic to the data collection]. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 1997. pp. 329–356.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laperrière A, editor. Les critères de scientificité des methodologies qualitatives [The criteria of scientificity of the qualitative methodologies]. Rimouski, Quebec: CQRS; 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pransky G, Shaw W, Franche RL, Clarke A. Disability prevention and communication among workers, physicians, employers, and insurers–current models and opportunities for improvement. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(11):625–634.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carroll C, Rick J, Pilgrim H, et al. Workplace involvement improves return to work rates among employees with back pain on long-term sick leave: a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(8):607–621.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zolnierek KBH, DiMatteo MR. Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2009;47(8):826–834.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in health care choices. Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50:892–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nastasia I, Coutu M-F, Tcaciuc R. Topics and trends in research on non-clinical interventions aimed at preventing prolonged work disability in workers compensated for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs): a systematic, comprehensive literature review. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(22):1841–1856.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grande SW, Durand M-A, Fisher ES, Elwyn G. Physicians as part of the solution? Community-based participatory research as a way to get shared decision making into practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(1):219–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coryn CL, Noakes LA, Westine CD, Schröter DC. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval. 2011;32(2):199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Groot G, Waldron T, Carr T, McMullen L, Bandura L-A, Neufeld S-M, et al. Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist review protocol. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):114.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0508-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, et al. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci. 2012;7(1):25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Basch CE, Sliepcevich EM, Gold RS, Duncan DF, Kolbe LJ. Avoiding type III errors in health education program evaluations: a case study. Health Educ Quart. 1985;12(3):315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-France Coutu
    • 1
    • 7
  • France Légaré
    • 2
  • Marie-José Durand
    • 1
    • 7
  • Dawn Stacey
    • 3
  • Marie-Elise Labrecque
    • 1
  • Marc Corbière
    • 4
    • 5
  • Lesley Bainbridge
    • 6
  1. 1.CAPRIT and School of RehabilitationUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada
  2. 2.Research Center of Centre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecSt-François d’Assise HospitalQuebecCanada
  3. 3.School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of OttawaOttawa Hospital Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Université du Québec à MontréalMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Centre de recherche de l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalMontrealCanada
  6. 6.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  7. 7.Charles-Le Moyne Hospital Research CentreLongueuilCanada

Personalised recommendations