"Dis-able bodied" or "dis-able minded": stakeholders' return-to-work experiences compared between physical and mental health conditions.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore if and why the return-to-work (RTW) experiences of various workplace stakeholders in the Netherlands and Denmark differ between physical and mental health conditions, and to understand the consequences of potentially different experiences for the RTW process in both health conditions. METHODS: We studied 21 cases of long-term sickness absence, and held a total of 61 semi-structured interviews with the various actors involved in these cases. RESULTS: Physical cases were seen as "easy" and mental cases as "difficult" to manage, based on the visibility and predictability of health complaints. On this ground, assessing work ability and following required RTW actions were perceived as more urgent in mental than in physical cases. Despite these perceptions, in practice, the assessment of work ability seemed to impair the RTW process in mental cases (but not in physical ones), and the (non-)uptake of RTW actions appeared to have similar results in both mental and physical cases. CONCLUSIONS: With these outcomes, the effectiveness of a differential approach is questioned, and the relevance of a bidirectional dialog on work ability and a phased RTW plan is highlighted, regardless of the absence cause. Our study also demonstrates how policymakers need to strike a balance between obligatory and permissive legislation to better involve workplaces in RTW issues. Implications for rehabilitation Both physically and mentally sick-listed employees could benefit from a bidirectional dialog on work ability as well as from a phased RTW plan. A greater role for employers in the RTW process should be accompanied with a support for sick-listed employees, in both physical and mental sickness absence cases. Dutch and Danish RTW legislation could be improved by carefully balancing obligatory and permissive rules and regulations to involve workplaces in RTW matters.

Medical doctors in healthcare leadership: theoretical and practical challenges.

BACKGROUND: While healthcare systems vary in their structure and available resources, it is widely recognized that medical doctors play a key role in their adaptation and performance. In this article, we examine recent government and organizational policies in two different health systems that aim to develop clinical leadership among the medical profession. Clinical leadership refers to the engagement and guiding role of physicians in health system improvement. Three dimensions are defined to conduct our analysis of engaging medical doctors in healthcare leadership: the position and status of medical doctors within the system; the broader institutional context of governmental and organizational policies to engage medical doctors in clinical leadership roles; and the main factors that may facilitate or limit achievements. METHODS: Our aim in this study is exploratory. We selected two contrasting cases according to their level of institutional pluralism: one national health insurance system, Canada, and one etatist social insurance system, the Netherlands. We documented the institutional dynamics of medical doctors' engagement and leadership through secondary sources, such as government websites, key policy reports, and scholarly literature on health policies in both countries. RESULTS: Initiatives across Canadian provinces signal that the medical profession and governments search for alternatives to involve doctors in health system improvement beyond the limitations imposed by their fundamental social contract and formal labour relations. These initiatives suggest an emerging trend toward more joint collaboration between governments and medical associations. In the Dutch system, organizational and legal attempts for integration over the past decades do not yet fit well with the ideas and interests of medical doctors. The engagement of medical doctors requires additional initiatives that are closer to their professional values and interests and that depart from an overly focus on top down performance indicators and competition. CONCLUSIONS: Different institutional contexts have different policy experiences regarding the engagement and leadership of medical doctors but seem to face similar policy challenges. Achieving alignment between soft (trust, collaboration) and hard (financial incentives) levers may require facilitative conditions at the level of the health system, like clarity and stability of broad policy orientations and openness to local experimentation.