A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation of the Maastricht Work-Related Support Intervention for Healthcare Professionals in Clinical Care.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-06-10 DOI:10.1007/s10926-024-10211-0
Maarten Butink, Annelies Boonen, Tim Boymans, Vera Baadjou, Emmelie Hazelzet, Angelique de Rijk
{"title":"A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation of the Maastricht Work-Related Support Intervention for Healthcare Professionals in Clinical Care.","authors":"Maarten Butink, Annelies Boonen, Tim Boymans, Vera Baadjou, Emmelie Hazelzet, Angelique de Rijk","doi":"10.1007/s10926-024-10211-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To perform the process evaluation of an intervention that aims to facilitate clinical healthcare professionals (HCP) to provide Maastricht Work-Related Support (WRS) to working patients with a chronic disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods approach was applied to address reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM framework) as well as context of the Maastricht WRS intervention. Qualitative data included interviews with HCPs (N = 10), patients at two time points (N = 10 and N = 9), and field notes. Quantitative data included screening logbooks of HCPs, patient screening forms, and a questionnaire for patients. Content analysis or computation of frequencies was applied where applicable.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight HCPs participated in the intervention (reach). They had a low attitude toward providing Maastricht WRS themselves (adoption). During clinical consultations, they addressed work for 770 of 1,624 (47%) persons of working age. Only 57% (437/770) had paid work, of which 10% (44/437) acknowledged a current need for support. Discussing work during clinical consultations by HCPs was hindered by other medical priorities and patients not disclosing problems (implementation). Over time, Maastricht WRS was less consistently provided (maintenance). Patients reported a positive impact of the intervention, such as fitness for work (efficacy). Context (e.g., lack of urgency, priority, time, and management support) played a pivotal role in the implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This evaluation showed that HCPs had a positive attitude toward WRS in general, but their attitude toward provide Maastricht WRS themselves in daily clinical care was low. Recommendations include improving HCPs' attitude, addressing WRS as a key policy point, and facilitating time.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10211-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To perform the process evaluation of an intervention that aims to facilitate clinical healthcare professionals (HCP) to provide Maastricht Work-Related Support (WRS) to working patients with a chronic disease.

Methods: A mixed-methods approach was applied to address reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM framework) as well as context of the Maastricht WRS intervention. Qualitative data included interviews with HCPs (N = 10), patients at two time points (N = 10 and N = 9), and field notes. Quantitative data included screening logbooks of HCPs, patient screening forms, and a questionnaire for patients. Content analysis or computation of frequencies was applied where applicable.

Results: Twenty-eight HCPs participated in the intervention (reach). They had a low attitude toward providing Maastricht WRS themselves (adoption). During clinical consultations, they addressed work for 770 of 1,624 (47%) persons of working age. Only 57% (437/770) had paid work, of which 10% (44/437) acknowledged a current need for support. Discussing work during clinical consultations by HCPs was hindered by other medical priorities and patients not disclosing problems (implementation). Over time, Maastricht WRS was less consistently provided (maintenance). Patients reported a positive impact of the intervention, such as fitness for work (efficacy). Context (e.g., lack of urgency, priority, time, and management support) played a pivotal role in the implementation.

Conclusion: This evaluation showed that HCPs had a positive attitude toward WRS in general, but their attitude toward provide Maastricht WRS themselves in daily clinical care was low. Recommendations include improving HCPs' attitude, addressing WRS as a key policy point, and facilitating time.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对马斯特里赫特医疗保健专业人员临床护理工作相关支持干预的混合方法过程评估。
目的:对一项旨在促进临床医护专业人员(HCP)为在职慢性病患者提供马斯特里赫特工作相关支持(WRS)的干预措施进行过程评估:方法:采用混合方法解决马斯特里赫特工作相关支持干预的覆盖范围、效果、采用、实施和维护(RE-AIM 框架)以及背景问题。定性数据包括对高级保健人员(10 人)、两个时间点的患者(10 人和 9 人)的访谈以及现场记录。定量数据包括保健医生的筛查记录、患者筛查表和患者问卷。在适当的情况下进行内容分析或频率计算:结果:28 名保健医生参与了干预(达到率)。他们对自己提供马斯特里赫特 WRS 的态度不积极(采纳)。在临床咨询过程中,他们为 1,624 名(47%)处于工作年龄的人中的 770 人提供了服务。只有 57%(437/770)的人有带薪工作,其中 10%(44/437)的人承认目前需要支持。由于其他医疗优先事项和病人不透露问题(实施),妨碍了保健医生在临床会诊期间讨论工作问题。随着时间的推移,马斯特里赫特 WRS 提供的一致性降低(维持)。患者报告称,干预措施产生了积极的影响,例如提高了工作能力(疗效)。在实施过程中,环境(如缺乏紧迫性、优先性、时间和管理支持)起到了关键作用:评估结果表明,医疗保健人员总体上对 WRS 持积极态度,但对在日常临床护理中使用马斯特里赫特 WRS 的态度却不积极。建议包括改善医护人员的态度,将 WRS 作为一项关键的政策要点,并为时间提供便利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law.  A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Tensions of Low-Back Pain and Lifting; Bridging Clinical Low-Back Pain and Occupational Lifting Guidelines. Correction: Organisational Policies and Practices for the Inclusion of Vulnerable Workers: A Scoping Review of the Employer's Perspective. Social Insurance Literacy Among the Sick-listed-A Study of Clients' Comprehension and Self-Rated System Comprehensibility of the Sickness Insurance System. Evaluating Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation Services Among Injured Workers Treated in a Canadian Workers' Compensation System: A Population-Based Study. Return-to-Work Coordinators' Perceptions of Their Roles Relative to Workers: A Discourse Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1