The work and vocational advice intervention for adults in full or part-time employment: a synopsis of the WAVE feasibility study and RCT.

内容摘要

Accessible occupational health advice is only available to approximately half the United Kingdom population. With rising sickness absence new models for delivering occupational health are required to support employees with health conditions to manage their condition at work. To determine, in patients consulting in general practice who receive a fit note, whether the addition of a vocational advice intervention to usual primary care leads to fewer days lost from work, and whether vocational advice is cost-effective. Intervention development: Training development using mixed methods and the theoretical framework the Behaviour Change Wheel. Feasibility study: Mixed methods, single-arm feasibility study, with stop/go criteria to assist decision making about progression to full trial. Trial: Multi-centre, two-parallel arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial with health economic analysis and nested qualitative study. General practices in three geographic areas in England: West Midlands, South London and Wessex. Patients aged ≥ 18 years, currently in paid employment (full or part-time), current absence from work of at least 2 weeks but not more than 6 consecutive months, with a fit note for any health condition. Vocational advice delivered by trained vocational support workers plus usual primary care (intervention arm), compared to usual primary care alone (control arm). The outcome of intervention development was a vocational advice intervention and training package. Feasibility study outcomes were ability to recruit and acceptability of the vocational advice intervention to participants. The trial primary outcome was number of days absent from work over 6 months. A vocational advice intervention and training package designed for delivery in primary care using case management and stepped care to support patients absent from work for 2 weeks to 6 months. The feasibility study recruited 19 participants demonstrating the vocational advice intervention could be delivered and was acceptable to participants. Recommendations around automated recruitment and data collection were made which were implemented in the trial. The randomised controlled trial sample size was 720; 130 participants were recruited (66 intervention/64 control) before closing early due to recruitment difficulties. There was no statistically significant difference in days absent over 6 months with a mean of 37 (standard deviation 48) days absence (vocational advice intervention) compared to a mean of 42 (standard deviation 57) days absence (usual primary care alone) and an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.913 (80% confidence interval 0.653 to 1.276). Health economic analysis found that productivity losses were also lower in the intervention arm at £5513.84 (standard deviation £7101.43) compared to the control arm at £6146.21 (standard deviation 8431.88). At 6 weeks, the intervention arm had lower mean absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss and activity impairment on the work productivity activity impairment scale than the control arm; again this was not significant. This study resulted in a vocational advice intervention suitable for all health conditions and a training package to support delivery of the intervention. In primary care, delivery was feasible and acceptable to patients. Exploratory analysis indicated some signals of benefit in terms of days absent from work, costs and most other secondary outcome measures. Future work should focus on the delivery of a fully powered randomised controlled trial evaluating an early vocational advice intervention compared to usual primary care to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this approach. This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/94/49. People’s health often impacts their ability to work, but most people do not have access to occupational health. The Work And Vocational advicE study aimed to find out whether adding a vocational advice intervention to usual primary care helped people off work for any health condition for between 2 weeks and 6 months, to have fewer days off work than those who did not get the vocational advice intervention. Three phases of research were carried out: intervention development: designing the vocational advice intervention feasibility study: testing the plans for the trial methods ted randomised controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to the vocational advice intervention plus usual primary care or usual primary care alone. The outcome was number of days absence over 6 months. A vocational advice intervention and training package was designed to support patients with any health condition, absent from work for 2 weeks to 6 months. The feasibility study recruited 19 participants demonstrating the vocational advice intervention could be delivered and was acceptable. The randomised controlled trial recruited 130 participants (66 to the vocational advice intervention/64 to usual primary care alone), before closing early. There was a non-significant difference in days absent over 6 months with the intervention arm reporting 4.8 fewer days absence compared to the control arm. Health economic analysis reported productivity losses were lower in the intervention arm at £5513.84 (standard deviation £7101.43) compared to the control arm at £6146.21 (standard deviation 8431.88). We developed a vocational advice intervention and training to support delivery of the intervention. The feasibility study found delivery was feasible and acceptable, but recruitment needed improvement. Exploratory analysis found signals of benefit in days absent from work, costs and most other measures. Future work should deliver of a fully powered randomised controlled trial evaluating an early vocational advice intervention compared to usual primary care to be sure of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.