Dataset Information

Role of a Digital Return-To-Work Solution for Individuals With Common Mental Disorders: Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Three Stakeholder Groups.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Although effective return-to-work (RTW) interventions are not widely available for individuals with common mental disorders on sick leave, there is potential for transforming such interventions into a digital solution in an effort to make them more widely available. However, little is currently known about the viewpoints of different stakeholder groups, which are critical for successful development and implementation of a digital RTW intervention in health care services. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine stakeholder groups' perspectives on the role and legitimacy of a digital RTW solution called mWorks for individuals with common mental disorders who are on sick leave. METHODS:A purposeful snowball sampling method was utilized to recruit respondents. Semistructured individual and focus group interviews were conducted for stakeholder groups of service users, RTW professionals, and influential managers regarding their experiences, needs, and preferences for mWorks. Content analysis generated themes and categories that constituted the main findings. RESULTS:The legitimacy of a digital RTW solution was high among all stakeholder groups since such a tool was perceived to enable service users to take control over their RTW process. This was mainly a product of accessible support and promotion of service user decision making, which had the potential to empower service users. All respondents stressed the importance of fostering a positive user experience with usability and emphasis on service user resources and strengths, as opposed to various limitations and shortcomings. Stakeholder groups highlighted critical content to facilitate RTW, such as the need to clarify a back-to-work plan, accompanied by an accessible RTW network and strategies for handling mental health problems. Implementation challenges primarily involved influential managers' concern of legislation incompatibility with innovative technology, and RTW professionals' concern of the possibility that digital solutions may replace them to a certain extent. CONCLUSIONS:This formative research emphasizes the importance of shifting power from RTW professionals to service users. mWorks can play a role in mediating service user control over the RTW process, and thereby increase their empowerment. A digital RTW solution may facilitate the circumvention of implementation barriers associated with introducing evidence-based RTW interventions in a traditional RTW context.

SUBMITTER: Engdahl P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7527904 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Role of a Digital Return-To-Work Solution for Individuals With Common Mental Disorders: Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Three Stakeholder Groups.

Engdahl Patrik P Svedberg Petra P Lexén Annika A Bejerholm Ulrika U

JMIR formative research 20200916 9

<h4>Background</h4>Although effective return-to-work (RTW) interventions are not widely available for individuals with common mental disorders on sick leave, there is potential for transforming such interventions into a digital solution in an effort to make them more widely available. However, little is currently known about the viewpoints of different stakeholder groups, which are critical for successful development and implementation of a digital RTW intervention in health care services.<h4>Ob ...[more]

PMID: 32936089

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Attending physician preceptors are accountable to many stakeholder groups, yet stakeholders' views about what the preceptor role entails have not been sufficiently considered. OBJECTIVE:To explore stakeholder groups' unique perspectives of the preceptor role. DESIGN:Qualitative study with a constructivist orientation. PARTICIPANTS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 73 participants from two university teaching hospitals between October 2012 and March 2014. Participants included representatives from seven stakeholder groups: patients and their families, allied healthcare providers, bedside nurses, nurse managers, medical students, internal medicine residents, and preceptors. APPROACH:An inductive thematic analysis was conducted where researchers coded transcripts, abstracted codes into themes, and then mapped themes onto six focus areas: role dimensions, role performance, stressors and rewards, mastery, fulfillment, and impact on others. Two authors then identified "recurrent themes" (emerging in two or more focus areas) and compared them across groups to identify "unique themes" (emerging from a maximum of two stakeholder groups). "Unique thematic emphases" (unique themes that would not have emerged if a stakeholder group was not interviewed) are described. KEY RESULTS:Patients and their families emphasized preceptors' ultimate authority. Allied healthcare providers described preceptors as engaged collaborators involved in discharge planning and requiring a sense of humor. Bedside nurses highlighted the need for role standardization. Nurse managers stressed preceptors' need for humanism. Medical students highlighted preceptors' emotional labor and their influence on learners' emotional well-being. Residents emphasized preceptors' responsibilities to multiple stakeholders. Preceptors described lifelong learning and exercising control over one's environment. CONCLUSIONS:Various stakeholder groups hold unique and nuanced views of the attending physician preceptor role. These views could broaden formal role guidance for medical education and patient care. This study generated real-world, practical examples of what stakeholders feel are important preceptor skills. These skills should be practiced, taught, and role modeled in this clinical setting.

Project description:BackgroundWork participation is an important determinant of public health; being unemployed leads to a decrease in an individual's health. In the Netherlands, people with a work disability can apply for disability benefits, in which people also receive support to return to work (RTW). A method, currently used in the medical sector, that can include both the perspective of the reintegration professional and of the individual in the process of RTW, is shared decision making (SDM). In this article we explore to what extent reintegration professionals currently use SDM, and to what extent they prefer to use SDM in their ideal interaction with clients.MethodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with fourteen reintegration professionals from four different municipalities. The transcripts were coded according to content analysis, applying open and axial coding.ResultsReintegration professionals emphasised the importance of having a good relationship with clients, of building trust and collaborating as a team. They did not inform their clients that they could be part of the decision-making process, or discussed a shared goal. Although professionals did emphasise the importance of aligning their approach with the preferences of the client and though they tried to offer some choice options, they did not mention available options, discussed the pros and cons of these options or evaluated decisions with their clients. Furthermore, they did not mention any of these aspects in their ideal interaction with clients.ConclusionsSDM has a potential value, because all professionals underline the importance of having an alliance with clients, collaborating as a team, and striving to align their approach with the preferences of the client. However, professionals currently perform a limited set of SDM steps. Additional knowledge and skills are needed for both reintegration professionals and municipalities so that professionals can consider and reflect on the value of using SDM, or SDM steps, in supporting RTW. Providing clients with knowledge and skills seems necessary to facilitate both self-management and SDM.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There are various complex reasons that influence sustainable adoption of innovations in health care systems. Low adoption can be caused by a lack of support from one or more stakeholders because their needs and expectations are not always considered or aligned. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to identify stakeholders' perceptions of barriers and facilitators toward the sustainable adoption of digital health innovations. METHODS:A stakeholder workshop was attended by 12 participants with a range of backgrounds on August 25, 2017, including people representing the views from patients, carers, local hospitals, pharmacy retailers, health insurers, health services researchers, engineers, and technology and pharmaceutical companies in Switzerland. On the basis of adoption of innovation frameworks, we asked participants to interview each other about 3 factors influencing the adoption of digitally delivered health interventions: (1) Facilitators and barriers in the external system, (2) Needs and expectations of stakeholders, and (3) Safety, quality, and usability of innovations. The worksheets and videos generated from the workshop were qualitatively analyzed and summarized. RESULTS:Facilitators for adoption mentioned were high levels of income and education, and digital health is a high priority to stakeholders. Main common interests of different stakeholders were patient satisfaction and job protection. Health care spending was a misaligned interest: although some stakeholders were keen on spending more to obtain or provide the highest quality of care, others were focused on reducing health care spending to provide cost-effective services. Switzerland's diversity and complexity, in terms of its organization with 26 cantons (administrative divisions), were barriers as these made it harder to ensure interoperability of interventions. A culture of innovation was considered a push factor, but adoption was inhibited by persistent paper-based systems, a fear of change, and unwillingness to share data. The sustainability of interventions can be promoted by making them patient-centered, meaning that patients should be involved throughout their development. CONCLUSIONS:Promoting sustainable adoption of digital health remains challenging despite various push factors being in place. Barriers related to fragmentation, patient-centeredness, data security, privacy, trust, and job security need to be addressed. A strength is that people from a wide range of backgrounds attended the workshop. A limitation is that the findings are focused on the macro level. In-depth case studies of specific issues need to be conducted in different settings.

Project description:Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation of psychosocial interventions in mental health services has the potential to improve the treatment of psychosis spectrum disorders (PSD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where care is predominantly focused on pharmacotherapy. The first step is to understand the views of key stakeholders. We conducted a multi-language qualitative study to explore the contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation of a cost-effective, digital psychosocial intervention, called DIALOG+, for treating PSD. DIALOG+ builds on existing clinician-patient relationships without requiring development of new services, making it well-fitting for healthcare systems with scarce resources.MethodsThirty-two focus groups were conducted with 174 participants (patients, clinicians, policymakers and carers), who were familiarized with DIALOG+ through a presentation. The Southeast European LMICs included in this research were: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, (Kosovo is referred throughout the text by United Nations resolution) North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Framework analysis was used to analyse the participants' accounts.ResultsSix major themes were identified. Three themes (Intervention characteristics; Carers' involvement; Patient and organisational benefits) were interpreted as perceived implementation facilitators. The theme Attitudes and perceived preparedness of potential adopters comprised of subthemes that were interpreted as both perceived implementation facilitators and barriers. Two other themes (Frequency of intervention delivery; Suggested changes to the intervention) were more broadly related to the intervention's implementation. Participants were exceedingly supportive of the implementation of a digital psychosocial intervention such as DIALOG+. Attractive intervention characteristics, efficient use of scarce resources for its implementation and potential to improve mental health services were seen as the main implementation facilitators. The major implementation barrier identified was psychiatrists' time constrains.ConclusionsThis study provided important insights regarding implementation of digital psychosocial interventions for people with PSD in low-resource settings by including perspectives from four stakeholder groups in five LMICs in Southeast Europe - a population and region rarely explored in the literature. The perceived limited availability of psychiatrists could be potentially resolved by increased inclusion of other mental health professionals in service delivery for PSD. These findings will be used to inform the implementation strategy of DIALOG+ across the participating countries. The study also offers insights into multi-country qualitative research.

Dataset Information

Role of a Digital Return-To-Work Solution for Individuals With Common Mental Disorders: Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Three Stakeholder Groups.

Publications

Role of a Digital Return-To-Work Solution for Individuals With Common Mental Disorders: Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Three Stakeholder Groups.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets