Background and purpose: To reduce the individual, societal, and economic burden of the high sick leave rates due to chronic pain, it is essential to find effective strategies for increasing return to work (RTW). Although multimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRPs) may have positive effects on RTW, the results are inconsistent. This study explores the factors that contribute to decreasing sick leave and increasing RTW in patients with chronic pain who completed a MMRP. Method: Four focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted. In total, 18 patients were interviewed. All patients had chronic pain and had completed a MMRP. They were either employed or unemployed, either working to some degree or fully on sick leave. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Three main categories were identified: Knowledge and understanding–prerequisites for tailored solutions; Individual adaptations–necessary but difficult to implement; and Stakeholder collaboration–needs improvement. Conclusion: The participants described a variety of facilitating and limiting factors that created complex prerequisites for RTW. This finding makes it clear that these patients need tailored interventions and strong collaboration among all stakeholders throughout the rehabilitation process. Tailored interventions and collaborations could improve the effectiveness of MMRPs.

Chronic pain is a major reason for sick leave worldwide. Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs (IPRPs), workplace interventions, and stakeholder collaboration may support patients in their...

Background: Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs (IPRPs) help people with chronic pain improve their health and manage their work; however, the way IPRPs address sick leave could be improved. Although work interventions can be a part of IPRP, it is not well known how and to what extent. Aim: This study explores the frequency of work interventions and the characteristics of patients who participate in work interventions as part of IPRP at specialist pain rehabilitation departments in Sweden. In addition, this study explores the association between participation in work interventions and change in patients’ self-rated work ability after IPRP. Methods: Data from the Swedish quality registry for pain rehabilitation (SQRP), which includes 3809 patients between 2016 and 2018, were analysed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses. Results: The results indicate a high participation rate in work interventions (90%). Some differences were evident concerning characteristics of patients who participated in different work interventions. The return-to-work (RTW) plan, the most frequently used work intervention, had the strongest association with change in self-rated work ability after IPRP. However, the effect sizes were small, and the initial score best explained the change. Furthermore, there were differences between employed and unemployed patients and employment had a positive association with change in self-rated work ability. Conclusion: More research is needed to understand IPRP’s mechanisms and work interventions to support patients with chronic pain, reduce sick leave, and manage work. Employment status needs to be considered and interventions should be tailored to match the individual needs.

Background: Sick leave and decreased ability to work are the consequences of chronic pain. Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs (IPRPs) aim to improve health-related quality of life and participation in work activities, although implementing rehabilitation strategies at work after IPRPs can be difficult. Employers’ knowledge about pain and the role of rehabilitation needs to be strengthened. The self-management of chronic pain can be improved through eHealth interventions. However, these interventions do not involve communicating with employers to improve work participation. To address this deficiency, a new eHealth intervention, Sustainable Worker Digital Support for Persons with Chronic Pain and Their Employers (SWEPPE), was developed. Objective: This study aimed to describe the acceptability of SWEPPE after IPRPs from the perspective of patients with chronic pain and their employers. Methods: This study included 11 patients and 4 employers who were recruited to test SWEPPE in daily life for 3 months after IPRPs. Data were collected using individual interviews at the end of the 3-month test period and questionnaires, which were completed when SWEPPE was introduced (questionnaire 1) and at a 3-month follow-up (questionnaire 2). Data were also collected on how often SWEPPE was used. Qualitative data were analyzed through a qualitative content analysis using an abductive approach. The framework used for the deductive approach was the theoretical framework of acceptability. Quantitative data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and the differences between the responses to questionnaires 1 and questionnaire 2 using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: Both patients and employers reported that SWEPPE increased their knowledge and understanding of how to improve work participation and helped them identify goals, barriers, and strategies for return to work. In addition, participants noted that SWEPPE improved employer-employee communication and collaboration. However, experiences and ratings varied among participants and the different SWEPPE modules. The acceptability of SWEPPE was lower in patients who experienced significant pain and fatigue. A high degree of flexibility and choice of ratings in SWEPPE were generally described as helpful. Conclusions: This study shows promising results on the user acceptability of SWEPPE from both patient and employer perspectives. However, the variations among patients and modules indicate a need for further testing and research to refine the content and identify the group of patients who will best benefit from SWEPPE.

BACKGROUND Sick leave and decreased ability to work are the consequences of chronic pain. Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs (IPRPs) aim to improve health-related quality of life and participation in work activities, although implementing rehabilitation strategies at work after IPRPs can be difficult. Employers’ knowledge about pain and the role of rehabilitation needs to be strengthened. The self-management of chronic pain can be improved through eHealth interventions. However, these interventions do not involve communicating with employers to improve work participation. To address this deficiency, a new eHealth intervention, Sustainable Worker Digital Support for Persons with Chronic Pain and Their Employers (SWEPPE), was developed. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to describe the acceptability of SWEPPE after IPRPs from the perspective of patients with chronic pain and their employers. METHODS This study included 11 patients and 4 employers who were recruited to test SWEPPE in daily life for 3 months after IPRPs. Data were collected using individual interviews at the end of the 3-month test period and questionnaires, which were completed when SWEPPE was introduced (questionnaire 1) and at a 3-month follow-up (questionnaire 2). Data were also collected on how often SWEPPE was used. Qualitative data were analyzed through a qualitative content analysis using an abductive approach. The framework used for the deductive approach was the theoretical framework of acceptability. Quantitative data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and the differences between the responses to questionnaires 1 and questionnaire 2 using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS Both patients and employers reported that SWEPPE increased their knowledge and understanding of how to improve work participation and helped them identify goals, barriers, and strategies for return to work. In addition, participants noted that SWEPPE improved employer-employee communication and collaboration. However, experiences and ratings varied among participants and the different SWEPPE modules. The acceptability of SWEPPE was lower in patients who experienced significant pain and fatigue. A high degree of flexibility and choice of ratings in SWEPPE were generally described as helpful. CONCLUSIONS This study shows promising results on the user acceptability of SWEPPE from both patient and employer perspectives. However, the variations among patients and modules indicate a need for further testing and research to refine the content and identify the group of patients who will best benefit from SWEPPE.