Identifying Local Obstacles and Facilitators of Implementation

Chapter

Abstract

Return-to-work (RTW) interventions are complex and disruptive innovations. They require the collaboration of multiple stakeholders with divergent interests within the healthcare system, the workplace system, and the insurance system. Implementation failures were reported in various countries as a consequence of this complexity. This chapter aims at describing the barriers and facilitators to implementing RTW interventions that are reported in the literature within the different systems at the individual, organisational, and legal levels. A conceptual integrative framework is proposed in order to identify barriers and facilitators prior to implementing RTW interventions in a new context. Further issues in implementation are discussed pertaining to the selection of implementation strategies and the challenge of the routinization of interventions.

Keywords

Europe Arena Stake 

References

  1. AGREE. (2003). Appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation: Instrument training manual. The AGREE Collaboration, 73 p. Available from: www.agreetrust.org
  2. Airaksinen, O., et al. (2006). Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. European Spine Journal, 15(Suppl 2), S192–S300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ammendolia, C., et al. (2002). Views on radiography use for patients with acute low back pain among chiropractors in an Ontario community. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 25(8), 511–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ammendolia, C., et al. (2009). Designing a workplace return-to-work program for occupational low back pain: An intervention mapping approach. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 10(1), 65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anema, J. R., et al. (2003). Participatory ergonomics as a return-to-work intervention: A future challenge? American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 44(3), 273–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnau, J. M., et al. (2006). A critical review of guidelines for low back pain treatment. European Spine Journal, 15(5), 543–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, R., Camosso-Stetinovic J., Gillies C., Shaw E. J., Cheater F., Flottorp S., Robertson N. (2010). Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes [Systematic Review]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (3).Google Scholar
  8. Baril, R., & Berthelette, D. (2000). Les composantes et les déterminants organisationnels des interventions de maintien du lien demploi en entreprises, in Études et recherches/Rapport R-238. Montréal: IRSST.Google Scholar
  9. Baril, R., & Berthelette, D. (2000). Components and organizational determinants of workplace interventions designed to facilitate early return to work [report], in Études et recherches/Rapport R-238. Montréal: IRSST.Google Scholar
  10. Baril, R., Berthelette, D., & Massicotte, P. (2003a). Early return to work of injured workers: Multidimensional patterns of individual and organizational factors. Safety Science, 41(4), 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baril, R., et al. (1994). [Exploratory study of the social and professional reintegration process of workers undergoing rehabilitation]./Étude exploratoire des processus de réinsertion sociale et professionnelle des travailleurs en réadaptation. Montréal: IRSST.Google Scholar
  12. Baril, R., et al. (2003b). Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: A qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 2101–2114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baril-Gingras, G., Bellemare, M., & Brun, J.-P. (2006). The contribution of qualitative analyses of occupational health and safety interventions: An example through a study of external advisory interventions. Safety Science, 44(10), 851–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bekkering, G. E., et al. (2003). Development of an implementation strategy for physiotherapy guidelines on low back pain. The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 49(3), 208–214.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Berwick, D. M. (2003). Disseminating innovations in health care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(15), 1969–1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blackman, I. (2003). The perceived complexity of vocational workplace rehabilitation and its implications for supervisor development. International Education Journal, 4(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  17. Bosch, M., et al. (2007). Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: A multiple case analysis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 13(2), 161–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cabana, M. D., et al. (1999). Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. [see comment]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(15), 1458–1465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cartmill, C., et al. (2011). Transdisciplinary teamwork: The experience of clinicians at a functional restoration program. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(1), 1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chenot, J. F., et al. (2008a). The impact of specialist care for low back pain on health service utilization in primary care patients: A prospective cohort study. European Journal of Pain, 12(3), 275–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chenot, J.-F., et al. (2008b). Acceptance and perceived barriers of implementing a guideline for managing low back in general practice. Implementation Science, 3(1), 7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corbiere, M., et al. (2010). A pan-Canadian evaluation of supported employment programs dedicated to people with severe mental disorders. Community Mental Health Journal, 46(1), 44–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Côté, A.-M., et al. (2009). Physiotherapists and use of low back pain guidelines: A qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(1), 94–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Craig, P., et al. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal, 337(7676), 979–983.Google Scholar
  25. Cretin, S., et al. (2001). Evaluating an integrated approach to clinical quality improvement: Clinical guidelines, quality measurement, and supportive system design. Medical Care, 39(8 Suppl 2), II70–II84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dahan, R., et al. (2007). The challenge of using the low back pain guidelines: A qualitative research. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 13(4), 616–620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dahan, R., et al. (2008). Is knowledge a barrier to implementing low back pain guidelines? Assessing the knowledge of Israeli family doctors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14(5), 785–791.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Damschroder, L., et al. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Daniellou, F., et al. (2008a). [Sustainable prevention of musculoskeletal disorders: What barriers? What levers?]. Paris: Ministry of Work.Google Scholar
  30. Daniellou, F., et al. (2008). La prévention durable des TMS: Quels freins ? Quels leviers daction ? Direction Générale du Travail/Ministère de l’emploi, de la cohésion sociale et du logement: Paris.Google Scholar
  31. de Leeuw, E. (2001). Investigating policy networks for health: Theory and method in a larger organizational perspective. WHO Regional Publications. European Series, 92, 185–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Driessen, M., et al. (2010). What are possible barriers and facilitators to implementation of a Participatory Ergonomics programme? Implementation Science, 5(1), 64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Durand, M. J., & Loisel, P. (2001). Therapeutic return to work: Rehabilitation in the workplace. Work, 17(1), 57–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Eakin, J., MacEachen, E., & Clarke, J. (2003). ‘Playing it smart’ with return to work: Small workplace experience under Ontario’s policy of self-reliance and early return. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 1(2), 19–41.Google Scholar
  35. Edlund, C., & Dahlgren, L. (2002). The physician’s role in the vocational rehabilitation process. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(14), 727–733.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Espeland, A., Albrektsen, G., & Larsen, J. L. (1999). Plain radiography of the lumbosacral spine. An audit of referrals from general practitioners. Acta Radiologica, 40(1), 52–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Espeland, A., & Baerheim, A. (2003). Factors affecting general practitioners’ decisions about plain radiography for back pain: Implications for classification of guideline barriers—A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 3(1), 8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fassier, J. B., Durand, M. J., & Loisel, P. (2011). 2nd place, PREMUS best paper competition: Implementing return-to-work interventions for workers with low-back pain—A conceptual framework to identify barriers and facilitators. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 37(2), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fassier, J. B., et al. (2009b). Etude de la faisabilité du modèle de Sherbrooke dans le système de santé français [A feasibility study of the Sherbrooke model in the French healthcare system]. Accessed 2012, december 23, Available from: http://www.usherbrooke.ca/caprit/fileadmin/sites/caprit/documents/fassier_2009_RAPPORT_SHERBROOKE_v_complete.pdf
  40. Fassier, J. B., et al. (2009a). A feasibility study of the Sherbrooke model in the French healthcare system [Etude de la faisabilité du modèle de Sherbrooke dans le système de santé français]. Université de Sherbrooke/Caisse nationale d’assurance maladie des travailleurs salariés/Direction des risques professionnels.Google Scholar
  41. Fixsen, D. L., et al. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.Google Scholar
  42. Franche, R. L., et al. (2005a). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: Optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 525–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Franche, R. L., et al. (2005b). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: A systematic review of the quantitative literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 607–631.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Freeborn, D. K., et al. (1997). Primary care physicians’ use of lumbar spine imaging tests: Effects of guidelines and practice pattern feedback. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12(10), 619–625.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Friesen, M. N., Yassi, A., & Cooper, J. (2001). Return-to-work: The importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work, 17(1), 11–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Gard, G., & Larsson, A. (2003). Focus on motivation in the work rehabilitation planning process: A qualitative study from the employer’s perspective. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13(3), 159–167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gard, G., & Larsson, A. (2006). How can cooperation between rehabilitation professionals in rehabilitation planning be improved? A qualitative study from the employer’s perspective. Work, 26(2), 191–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Graham, I. D., et al. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Greenhalgh, T., et al. (2004a). How to spread good ideas. A systematic review of the literature on diffusion, dissemination and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery and organisation, ed. National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation (NCCSDO). London.Google Scholar
  50. Greenhalgh, T., et al. (2004b). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grimshaw, J., et al. (2003). Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 12(4), 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003). From best evidence to best practice: Effective implementation of change in patients’ care. The Lancet, 362(9391), 1225–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Grol, R., et al. (2007). Planning and studying improvement in patient care: The use of theoretical perspectives. The Milbank Quarterly, 85(1), 93–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Guzman, J., et al. (2002). Return to work after occupational injury. Family physicians’ perspectives on soft-tissue injuries. Canadian Family Physician Médecin de Famille Canadien, 48(12), 1912–1919.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Haines, A., Kuruvilla, S., & Borchert, M. (2004). Bridging the implementation gap between knowledge and action for health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82(10), 724–733.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Harting, J., et al. (2009). A qualitative application of the diffusion of innovations theory to examine determinants of guideline adherence among physical therapists. Physical Therapy, 89(3), 221–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ikezawa, Y., et al. (2010). Do clinicians working within the same context make consistent return-to-work recommendations? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 367–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Keith, R., et al. (2010). Fidelity of implementation: Development and testing of a measure. Implementation Science, 5(1), 99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kenny, D. T. (1995). Barriers to occupational rehabilitation: An exploratory study of long-term injured workers. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety—Australia and New Zealand, 11(3), 249–256.Google Scholar
  60. Koes, B. W., et al. (2001). Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: An international comparison. Spine, 26(22), 2504–2513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Larsson, A., & Gard, G. (2003). How can the rehabilitation planning process at the workplace be improved? A qualitative study from employers’ perspective. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13(3), 169–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Li, L. C., & Bombardier, C. (2001). Physical therapy management of low back pain: An exploratory survey of therapist approaches. Physical Therapy, 81(4), 1018–1028.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Lippel, K. (1999a). Therapeutic and anti-therapeutic consequences of workers’ compensation. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(5–6), 521–546.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Lippel, K. (1999b). Workers’ compensation and stress. Gender and access to compensation. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(1), 79–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lippel, K. (2003). The private policing of injured workers in Canada: Legitimate management practices or human rights violations? Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 22(2), 97–118.Google Scholar
  66. Lippel, K. (2007). Workers describe the effect of the workers’ compensation process on their health: A Québec study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4–5), 427–443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Loisel, P., et al. (1997). A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine, 22(24), 2911–2918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Loisel, P., et al. (2003). From evidence to community practice in work rehabilitation: The Quebec experience. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 19(2), 105–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Loisel, P., et al. (2005a). Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: The challenge of implementing evidence. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 507–524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Loisel, P., et al. (2005b). Interorganizational collaboration in occupational rehabilitation: Perceptions of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 581–590.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Loisel, P., et al. (2005c). Training the next generation of researchers in work disability prevention: The Canadian Work Disability Prevention CIHR Strategic Training Program. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(3), 273–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Luijsterburg, P. A., et al. (2004). Neurosurgeons’ management of lumbosacral radicular syndrome evaluated against a clinical guideline. European Spine Journal, 13(8), 719–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., & Ferrier, S. (2007). Unexpected barriers in return to work: Lessons learned from injured worker peer support groups. Work, 29(2), 155–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. MacEachen, E., et al. (2006). Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32(4), 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. MacEachen, E., et al. (2010a). The “toxic dose” of system problems: Why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 349–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. MacEachen, E., et al. (2010b). Workplace health understandings and processes in small businesses: A systematic review of the qualitative literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(2), 180–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Maiwald, K., et al. (2011). Evaluation of a workplace disability prevention intervention in Canada: Examining differing perceptions of stakeholders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 179–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Menear, M., et al. (2011). Organizational analysis of Canadian supported employment programs for people with psychiatric disabilities. Social Science & Medicine, 72(7), 1028–1035; discussion 1036–1038.Google Scholar
  79. Nordqvist, C., Holmqvist, C., & Alexanderson, K. (2003). Views of laypersons on the role employers play in return to work when sick-listed. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13(1), 11–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Overmeer, T., et al. (2005). Do evidence-based guidelines have an impact in primary care? A cross-sectional study of Swedish physicians and physiotherapists. Spine, 30(1), 146–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Pincus, T., et al. (2010). Returning back pain patients to work: How private musculoskeletal practitioners outside the national health service perceive their role (an interview study). Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 322–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pluye, P., Potvin, L., & Denis, J.-L. (2004a). Making public health programs last: Conceptualizing sustainability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27(2), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pluye, P., et al. (2004b). Program sustainability: Focus on organizational routines. Health Promotion International, 19(4), 489–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pluye, P., et al. (2005). Program sustainability begins with the first events. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(2), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Poiraudeau, S., et al. (2006). Outcome of subacute low back pain: Influence of patients’ and rheumatologists’ characteristics. Rheumatology, 45(6), 718–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Poot, O., Strauss, P., & Mairiaux, P. (2009). [Actions of the Fund for Occupational Diseases, in terms of rehabilitation of work-related low-back pain]. Revue Médicale de Bruxelles, 30(4), 326–329.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Roberts-Yates, C. (2003). The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: The need for new operational frameworks. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(16), 898–907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rogers, E. M. (1995a). Attributes of innovations and their rate of adoption. In E. M. Rogers (Ed.), Diffusion of innovations (pp. 204–251). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  89. Rogers, E. M. (1995b). Innovation in organizations. In E. M. Rogers (Ed.), Diffusion of innovations (pp. 371–404). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  90. Roquelaure, Y. (2008). Workplace intervention and musculoskeletal disorders: The need to develop research on implementation strategy. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 65(1), 4–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rutten, G., et al. (2009). A theory-based cross-sectional survey demonstrated the important role of awareness in guideline implementation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(2), 167–176e1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sackett, D. L., et al. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. [see comment]. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Saillour-Glenisson, F., & Michel, P. (2003). [Individual and collective facilitators of and barriers to the use of clinical practice guidelines by physicians: A literature review]. Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique, 51(1 Pt 1), 65–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schectman, J. M., et al. (2003). Randomized controlled trial of education and feedback for implementation of guidelines for acute low back pain. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(10), 773–780.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Scheirer, M. A., Hartling, G., & Hagerman, D. (2008). Defining sustainability outcomes of health programs: Illustrations from an on-line survey. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31(4), 335–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schers, H., et al. (2000). Low back pain in general practice: Reported management and reasons for not adhering to the guidelines in The Netherlands. British Journal of General Practice, 50(457), 640–644.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Schers, H., et al. (2001). Implementation barriers for general practice guidelines on low back pain a qualitative study. Spine, 26(15), E348–E353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Shaw, W. S., et al. (2003). Employee perspectives on the role of supervisors to prevent workplace disability after injuries. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13(3), 129–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Shaw, W., et al. (2008). A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(1), 2–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Spitzer, W. (1987). Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders. Spine, 12(7 Suppl), S1–S59.Google Scholar
  102. Ståhl, C., et al. (2010). A matter of trust? A study of coordination of Swedish stakeholders in return-to-work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 299–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stahl, C., et al. (2011). From cooperation to conflict? Swedish rehabilitation professionals’ experiences of interorganizational cooperation. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 441–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Steenbeek, R., et al. (2011). The development of instruments to measure the work disability assessment behaviour of insurance physicians. BMC Public Health, 11, 1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., & Graham, I. (2009). Defining knowledge translation. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 181(3–4), 165–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Svensson, T., et al. (2003). Shame-inducing encounters. Negative emotional aspects of sickness-absentees’ interactions with rehabilitation professionals. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13(3), 183–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tjulin, A., Edvardsson Stiwne, E., & Ekberg, K. (2009). Experience of the implementation of a multi-stakeholder return-to-work programme. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(4), 409–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tjulin, Å., MacEachen, E., & Ekberg, K. (2010). Exploring workplace actors experiences of the social organization of return-to-work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 311–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tjulin, A., Maceachen, E., & Ekberg, K. (2011a). Exploring the meaning of early contact in return-to-work from workplace actors’ perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(2), 137–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Tjulin, A., et al. (2011b). The social interaction of return to work explored from co-workers experiences. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(21–22), 1979–1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. van der Molen, H. F., et al. (2005). Conceptual framework for the implementation of interventions in the construction industry. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 31(Suppl 2), 96–103.Google Scholar
  112. van Eerd, D., et al. (2010). Process and implementation of participatory ergonomic interventions: A systematic review. Ergonomics, 53(10), 1153–1166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. van Oostrom, S. H., et al. (2007). Development of a ­workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with stress-related mental disorders: Intervention mapping as a useful tool. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. van Oostrom, S. H., et al. (2009). A participatory workplace intervention for employees with distress and lost time: A feasibility evaluation within a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(2), 212–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. van Rijssen, H. J., et al. (2011). A typology of sick-listed claimants to improve communication skills for social insurance physicians during medical disability assessment interviews. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(1), 66–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. van Tulder, M., et al. (2004). Quality of primary care guidelines for acute low back pain. Spine, 29(17), E357–E362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Vermeulen, S., et al. (2009). Intervention mapping for development of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders. BMC Public Health, 9(1), 216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Occupational Health and MedicineHospices Civils de Lyon/Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1Bron cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations