Self-perceived barriers to returning to work among employees with a low educational level on long-term sick leave: the “NOW WHAT” large-scale interview study

Linn V. Lervik; Elisabeth Frostestad; Kine  Strømstad; Ida G. Gulliksen; Monica  Lillefjell; Jens C. Skogen; Elin Ekbladh; Randi W. Aas

doi:10.2340/jrm.v57.40604

Authors

Linn V. Lervik Department of Rehabilitation Science and Health Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet–Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
Elisabeth Frostestad Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
Kine Strømstad Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway; Institute for Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, VID Specialized University, Stavanger, Norway
Ida G. Gulliksen Department of Rehabilitation Science and Health Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet–Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
Monica Lillefjell Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway; Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Jens C. Skogen Department of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway; Centre for Evaluation of Public Health Measures, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Alcohol and Drug Research Western Norway, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway
Elin Ekbladh Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Randi W. Aas Department of Rehabilitation Science and Health Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet–Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway; Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v57.40604

Keywords:

barriers, content analysis, interview, ICF, educational level, NOW WHAT, long-term sick leave, return to work

Abstract

Objective: Because employees with low educational levels have the highest rates of sick leave, this study aimed to identify the self-perceived return-to-work barriers of employees with low educational levels on long-term sick leave.

Methods: Employees on long-term sick leave with primary/secondary educational attainment were included from the NOW WHAT large-scale interview study (n = 122). The World Health Organization’s system of classifying functioning, disability, and health guided the deductive content analysis.

Results: 1,942 meaning units describing return-to-work barriers across all classifications were identified. The most frequent components were body functions (n = 552, 28%, mean = 4.5), with mental functions (e.g., sleep, tiredness, emotional and cognitive functioning) the most frequent barriers; environmental factors (n = 414, 21%, mean = 3.4), with services, systems ,and policies (e.g., social security, healthcare system) the most prevalent barriers; activity limitations (n = 352, 18%, mean = 2.9); and personal factors (n = 323, 17%, mean = 2.6).

Conclusion: Employees with low educational levels on long-term sick leave described a wide range of return-to-work barriers and combinations thereof. In addition to health-related functional barriers, identifying environmental, activity-limitation, and personal barriers is important to enhance understanding of this group’s potential determinants of absence from work.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

van der Noordt M, IJzelenberg H, Droomers M, Proper KI. Health effects of employment: a systematic review of prospective studies. Occup Environ Med 2014; 71: 730–736.

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101891 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101891

Waddell G, Burton AK. Is work good for your health and well-being? Report No. 0117036943. London: Stationery Office; 2006.

Gjesdal S, Ringdal PR, Haug K, Mæland JG. Predictors of disability pension in long-term sickness absence: results from a population-based and prospective study in Norway 1994–1999. Eur J Publ Health 2004; 14: 398–405.

https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/14.4.398 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/14.4.398

Karlsson NE, Carstensen JM, Gjesdal S, Alexanderson KAE. Risk factors for disability pension in a population-based cohort of men and women on long-term sick leave in Sweden. Eur J Publ Health 2008; 18: 224–231.

https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckm128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckm128

OECD. Investing in youth: Norway. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264283671-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264283671-en

Dekkers-Sánchez PM, Hoving JL, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW. Factors associated with long-term sick leave in sick-listed employees: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 2008; 65: 153.

https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.034983 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.034983

Higgins A, O’Halloran P, Porter S. Management of long term sickness absence: a systematic realist review. J Occup Rehabil 2012; 22: 322–332.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9362-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9362-4

Aas RW, Strupstad J. Sickness absence dictionary (SAD-1). 1st ed. Presenter; 2017.

Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, et al. Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropr Man Ther 2016; 24: 32.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-016-0113-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-016-0113-z

Gragnano A, Negrini A, Miglioretti M, Corbière M. Common psychosocial factors predicting return to work after common mental disorders, cardiovascular diseases, and cancers: a review of reviews supporting a cross-disease approach. J Occup Rehabil 2018; 28: 215–231.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9714-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9714-1

Knauf MT, Schultz IZ. Current conceptual models of return to work. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return to work: from research to practice. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2016: p. 27–51.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7627-7_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7627-7_2

Etuknwa A, Daniels K, Eib C. Sustainable return to work: a systematic review focusing on personal and social factors. J Occup Rehabil 2019; 29: 679–700.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09832-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09832-7

Fisker J, Hjorthøj C, Hellström L, Mundy SS, Rosenberg NG, Eplov LF. Predictors of return to work for people on sick leave with common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2022; 95: 1–13.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01827-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01827-3

Street TD, Lacey SJ. A systematic review of studies identifying predictors of poor return to work outcomes following workplace injury. Work 2015; 51: 373–381.

https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-141980 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-141980

Gravseth HM, Bjerkedal T, Irgens LM, Aalen OO, Selmer R, Kristensen P. Life course determinants for early disability pension: a follow-up of Norwegian men and women born 1967–1976. Eur J Epidemiol 2007; 22: 533–543.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-007-9139-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-007-9139-9

De Ridder KAA, Pape K, Johnsen R, Westin S, Holmen TL, Bjørngaard JH. School dropout: a major public health challenge: a 10-year prospective study on medical and non-medical social insurance benefits in young adulthood, the Young-HUNT 1 Study (Norway). J Epidemiol Commun Health 2012; 66: 995–1000.

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2011-200047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2011-200047

Myhr A, Haugan T, Lillefjell M, Halvorsen T. Non-completion of secondary education and early disability in Norway: geographic patterns, individual and community risks. BMC Publ Health 2018; 18: 682.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5551-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5551-1

Bonsaksen T, Thørrisen MM, Skogen JC, Aas RW. Who reported having a high-strain job, low-strain job, active job and passive job? The WIRUS screening study. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0227336.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227336 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227336

Johansson G, Lundberg I. Components of the illness flexibility model as explanations of socioeconomic differences in sickness absence. Int J Health Serv 2009; 39: 123–138.

https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.39.1.f DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.39.1.f

Karasek R, Theorell T. Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books; 1990.

Karasek R. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q 1979: 285–308.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498

Piha K, Laaksonen M, Martikainen P, Rahkonen O, Lahelma E. Interrelationships between education, occupational class, income and sickness absence. Eur J Public Health 2010; 20: 276–280.

https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp162 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp162

Tables of population education level [database on the internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.ssb.no/utdanning/utdanningsniva/statistikk/befolkningens-utdanningsniva

Sickness absence, after age, educational level, statistical variable, quarter and gender [Legemeldt sykefravær, etter alder, utdanningsnivå, statistikkvariabel, kvartal og kjønn] [database on the internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/13333/tableViewLayout1/

Hoefsmit N, Houkes I. Return to work of employees with low levels of education: the employers’ role and perspective. Work 2022; 73: 1189–1202.

https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-205233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-205233

Inoue S, Tateishi S, Harada A, Oginosawa Y, Abe H, Saeki S, et al. Qualitative study of barriers and facilitators encountered by individuals with physical diseases in returning and continuing to work. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22: 1229.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08604-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08604-z

Standal MI, Foldal VS, Hagen R, Aasdahl L, Johnsen R, Fors EA, et al. Health, work and family strain: psychosocial experiences at the early stages of long-term sickness absence. Front Psychol 2021; 12.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.596073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.596073

Dekkers-Sánchez PM, Wind H, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. A qualitative study of perpetuating factors for long-term sick leave and promoting factors for return to work: chronic work disabled patients in their own words. J Rehabil Med 2010; 42: 544–552.

https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0544 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0544

Bosma AR, Boot CRL, Schaafsma FG, Anema JR. Facilitators, barriers and support needs for staying at work with a chronic condition: a focus group study. BMC Publ Health 2020; 20: 201.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8320-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8320-x

Brewster AL, Curry LA, Cherlin EJ, Talbert-Slagle K, Horwitz LI, Bradley EH. Integrating new practices: a qualitative study of how hospital innovations become routine. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0357-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0357-3

Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Bradley EH. Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation 2009; 119: 1442–1452.

https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.742775 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.742775

Curry LA, Spatz E, Cherlin E, Thompson JW, Berg D, Ting HH, et al. What distinguishes top-performing hospitals in acute myocardial infarction mortality rates? A qualitative study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 384–390.

https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-154-6-201103150-00003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-154-6-201103150-00003

Hunt G, Moloney M, Fazio A. Embarking on large-scale qualitative research: reaping the benefits of mixed methods in studying youth, clubs and drugs. Nord Stud Alcohol Drugs 2011; 28: 433–452.

https://doi.org/10.2478/v10199-011-0040-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10199-011-0040-1

Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016; 26: 1753–1760.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

Tjora A. Kvalitative forskningsmetoder i praksis [Qualitative research methods in practice]. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag; 2017.

Cachia M, Millward L. The telephone medium and semi-structured interviews: a complementary fit. Qual Res Org Manag 2011; 6: 265–277.

https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641111188420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641111188420

Bresler L, Wasser JD, Hertzog NB, Lemons M. Beyond the lone ranger researcher: team work in qualitative research. Res Stud Music Educ 1996; 7: 13–27.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X9600700102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X9600700102

Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15: 1277–1288.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62: 107–115.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Krippendorff K. Recording/coding. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2019.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781

Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2012.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571

Maxwell JA. Using numbers in qualitative research. Qual Inq 2010; 16: 475–482.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740

World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. World Health Organization; 2001.

Bartys S, Frederiksen P, Bendix T, Burton K. System influences on work disability due to low back pain: an international evidence synthesis. Health Pol 2017; 121: 903–912.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.05.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.05.011

Davey J, Grönroos C. Health service literacy: complementary actor roles for transformative value co-creation. J Serv Market 2019; 33: 687–701.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2018-0272 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2018-0272

Standal MI, Aasdahl L, Jensen C, Foldal VS, Hagen R, Fors EA, et al. Subgroups of long-term sick-listed based on prognostic return to work factors across diagnoses: a cross-sectional latent class analysis. J Occup Rehabil 2021; 31: 383–392.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09928-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09928-5

Neuman WL. Basics of social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, USA: Allyn & Bacon; 2007.

Novick G. Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Res Nurs Health 2008; 31: 391–398.

https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20259

Holt A. Using the telephone for narrative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res 2010; 10: 113–121.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109348686 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109348686

Östlund G, Cedersund E, Hensing G, Alexanderson K. Domestic strain: a hindrance in rehabilitation? Scand J Caring Sci 2004; 18: 49–56.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00254.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00254.x