Sustainable Return to Work for Workers with Mental Health and Musculoskeletal Conditions.

Common mental health and musculoskeletal disorders (CMDs and MSDs) are two of the most significant causes of non-participation in employment amongst working age adults. BACKGROUND: This case study fills an important gap in the scientific literature on reintegration back to work after sickness absence due to CMDs and MSDs. It particularly examines the return to work (RTW) experiences of sick-listed employees to understand the facilitators and barriers of sustainable RTW. METHODS: Using a realist evaluation approach within a qualitative inquiry, perceptions of employees were explored to provide in-depth understanding of what, how and under what circumstances sustainable RTW can be enabled for employees absent on a short- or long-term basis. Repeat face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 participants (15 women and 7 men, aged 30-50 years and sick-listed with MSDs and CMDs) who were recruited using purposive sampling. Data was thematically analysed. RESULTS: A total of 2 main codes and 5 subcodes were developed and grouped into three theoretical abstractions. As a result of validating the context, mechanism, and outcome configurations with accounts of participants, all three initial theories explaining the most prominent mechanisms that either facilitates or impedes a sustainable RTW for people with CMDs and MSDs were justified. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal the active role of line managers on the RTW outcomes of returning employees. However, line-manager's competence and ability to effectively support and implement appropriate RTW strategies suited to employees' hinges on working in alignment with key stakeholders and returning employees.

The protective role of work self-efficacy on wellbeing during COVID-19 pandemic: Results from a longitudinal year-long study.

In this study, we focused on four work self-efficacy dimensions and their relationship with wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. We adopted a person-centered approach and investigated whether individuals with different work self-efficacy profiles would have different wellbeing experiences at 6 and 12 months from the beginning of the pandemic. Data were collected in the UK across three waves (January 2020, October 2020 and January 2021) on a sample of 393 full-time employees. Results showed that being in two at-risk profiles significantly increases the likelihood of experiencing lower wellbeing during the pandemic. In particular, the probability of belonging to the Profile 3 "low self-efficacy but high empathic" significantly increased the risk of lower wellbeing in the shorter and longer timeframe. In addition, the probability of belonging to the Profile 2 "high assertive and task self-efficacy but low emotional" also significantly increased the risk of lower wellbeing in the longer timeframe.

Implementing practices focused on workplace health and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review.

RATIONALE: Workplace health and wellbeing practices (WHWPs) often fail to improve psychological health or wellbeing because of implementation failure. Thus, implementation should be evaluated to improve the effectiveness of WHWPs. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to identify critical success factors for WHWP implementation and gaps in the evidence. Doing so provides a platform for future theoretical development. METHODS: We reviewed 74 separate studies that assessed the implementation of WHWPs and their effects on psychological health or psychological wellbeing. Most studies were from advanced industrial Western democracies (71). Intervention types included primary (e.g., work redesign, 37 studies; and health behavior change, 8 studies), secondary (e.g., mindfulness training, 11 studies), tertiary (e.g., focused on rehabilitation, 9 studies), and multifocal (e.g., including components of primary and secondary, 9 studies). RESULTS: Tangible changes preceded improvements in health and wellbeing, indicating intervention success cannot be attributed to non-specific factors. Some interventions had beneficial effects through mechanisms not planned as part of the intervention. Three factors were associated with successful WHWP implementation: continuation, learning, and effective governance. CONCLUSIONS: The review indicates future research could focus on how organizations manage conflict between WHWP implementation and existing organizational processes, and the dynamic nature of organizational contexts that affect and are affected by WHWP implementation. This systematic review is registered [PROSPERO: the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42019119656].