Persons with severe mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) have a high prevalence of somatic conditions compared to the general population. Mortality data in the Nordic countries reveal that these persons die 15–20 years earlier than the general population. Some factors explaining this high prevalence may be related to the individuals in question; others arise from the health care system’s difficulty in offering somatic health care to these patient groups. The aim of the present study was therefore to explore the experiences and views of patients, relatives and clinicians regarding individual and organizational factors which facilitate or hinder access to somatic health care for persons with severe mental illness. Flexible qualitative design. Data was collected by means of semi-structured individual interviews with patients with severe mental illness, relatives and clinicians representing primary and specialized health care. In all, 50 participants participated. The main barrier to accessing somatic care is the gap between the organization of the health care system and the patients’ individual health care needs. This is observed at both individual and organizational level. The health care system seems unable to support patients with severe mental illness and their psychiatric-somatic comorbidity. The main facilitators are the links between severe mental illness patients and medical departments. These links take the form of functions (i.e. systems which ensure that patients receive regular reminders), or persons (i.e. professional contacts who facilitate patients’ access the health care). Health care services for patients with severe mental illness need reorganization. Organizational structures and systems that facilitate cooperation between different departments must be put in place, along with training for health care professionals about somatic disease among psychiatric patients. The links between individual and organizational levels could be strengthened by introducing professional contacts, such as liaison physicians and case managers. This is also important to reduce stress and responsibility among relatives.

Qualitative interviews are generally conducted in person. As the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) prevents in-person interviews, methodological studies which investigate the use of the telephone for persons with different illness experiences are needed. The aim was to explore experiences of the use of telephone during semi-structured research interviews, from the perspective of participants and researchers. Data were collected from mobile phone interviews with 32 individuals who had common mental disorders or multimorbidity which were analyzed thematically, as well as field notes reflecting researchers’ experiences. The findings reveal several advantages of conducting interviews using mobile phones: flexibility, balanced anonymity and power relations, as well as a positive effect on self-disclosure and emotional display (leading to less emotional work and social responsibility). Challenges included the loss of human encounter, intense listening, and worries about technology, as well as sounds or disturbances in the environment. However, the positive aspects of not seeing each other were regarded as more important. In addition, we present some strategies before, during, and after conducting telephone interviews. Telephone interviews can be a valuable first option for data collection, allowing more individuals to be given a fair opportunity to share their experiences.

Our focus in this article is research interviews that involve two languages. We present an epistemological and methodological analysis of the meaning of qualitative interviewing with an interpreter. The results of the analysis show that such interviewing is not simply exchanging words between two languages, but means understanding, grasping the essential meanings of the spoken words, which requires an interpreter to bridge the different horizons of understanding. Consequently, a research interview including an interpreter means a three-way coconstruction of data. We suggest that interpreters be thoroughly introduced into the research process and research interview technique, that they take part in the preparations for the interview event, and evaluate the translation process with the researcher and informant after the interview.

To identify facilitators of and barriers to the coordination of return-to-work between the primary care services, the employee, and the employers from the perspective of coordinators and employees ...

Introduction In order for study results to be relevant for practice, the study participants should represent the source population. A common problem is recruitment of sufficient and representative subjects, threatening the external validity of the study and, ultimately, evidence-based practice. The aim was to highlight common challenges and to present possible solutions to recruitment. Methods Using four recent randomised controlled trials as examples, common recruitment challenges were highlighted and solutions were proposed. The four studies represented some common and some specific challenges, but they investigated interventions for the prevention of the two major public health challenges of today: musculoskeletal pain and common mental disorders. Results Identified challenges and suggested solutions were presented as a checklist to be used for future trials in order to aid recruitment and reporting thereof.

Among the working population, non-specific low-back pain and neck pain are one of the most common reasons for sickness absenteeism. The aim was to evaluate the effects of an early intervention of yoga - compared with strength training or evidence-based advice - on sickness absenteeism, sickness presenteeism, back and neck pain and disability among a working population. A randomized controlled trial was conducted on 159 participants with predominantly (90%) chronic back and neck pain. After screening, the participants were randomized to kundalini yoga, strength training or evidence-based advice. Primary outcome was sickness absenteeism. Secondary outcomes were sickness presenteeism, back and neck pain and disability. Self-reported questionnaires and SMS text messages were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months. The results did not indicate that kundalini yoga and strength training had any statistically significant effects on the primary outcome compared with evidence-based advice. An interaction effect was found between adherence to recommendations and sickness absenteeism, indicating larger significant effects among the adherers to kundalini yoga versus evidence-based advice: RR = 0.47 (CI 0.30; 0.74, p = 0.001), strength training versus evidence-based advice: RR = 0.60 (CI 0.38; 0.96, p = 0.032). Some significant differences were also found for the secondary outcomes to the advantage of kundalini yoga and strength training. Guided exercise in the forms of kundalini yoga or strength training does not reduce sickness absenteeism more than evidence-based advice alone. However, secondary analyses reveal that among those who pursue kundalini yoga or strength training at least two times a week, a significantly reduction in sickness absenteeism was found. Methods to increase adherence to treatment recommendations should be further developed and applied in exercise interventions. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01653782, date of registration: June, 28, 2012, retrospectively registered.