Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Operationalizing a Shared Decision Making Model for Work Rehabilitation Programs: A Consensus Process

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose The objective of this study was to design and operationalize shared decision making (SDM) rehabilitation model for worker rehabilitation programs. SDM has previously been shown to improve decision outcomes in patient-health care professional relationships. To date, SDM has not yet been adapted to work rehabilitation, although it could be a valuable approach to better understand and agree on return-to-work decisions. Methods We designed a preliminary model for return-to-work decisions for workers suffering from pain due to musculoskeletal injuries. We submitted the preliminary model and a questionnaire to expert health care professionals. Using the Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts method, a group consensus process was used to discuss and refine the experts’ responses to operationalize a model adapted for rehabilitation. Results Eleven occupational therapists (three were clinical coordinators) and four psychologists participated in three group consensus sessions. The final version of the model included one general longitudinal objective (the maintenance of a working alliance and assuring mutual comprehension among all stakeholders), and 11 specific objectives: establishing a working alliance, seven in the deliberation phase of the SDM process, and three in the implementation of the decision. Participants also reached consensus on between 1 and 8 indicators per objective. Conclusion We developed and operationalized an SDM rehabilitation model intended for a return-to-work implementation plan. The next step will be to document its feasibility among the main stakeholders (employer, union, insurer and worker) taking part in decisions about return to work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Statistics Canada. Labour force characteristics, seasonally adjusted, by province (monthly). Government of Canada, Canada. 2014. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/lfss01c-eng.htm. Accessed April 2014.

  2. Travail GM. In: Bonte P, Izard M, editors. Dictionnaire de l’ethnologie et de l’anthropologie (Dictionary of ethnology and anthropology). Paris: Quadrige/Presses Universitaires de France; 2000. p. 717–20.

  3. Leufstadius C, Eklund M, Erlandsson LK. Meaningfulness in work—experiences among employed individuals with persistent mental illness. Work. 2009;34(1):21–32. doi:10.3233/WOR-2009-0899.

  4. Vézina M, Cloutier E, Stock S, Lippel K, Fortin É, Delisle A, et al. Enquête québécoise sur des conditions de travail d’emploi et de santé et de sécurité du travail (Quebec survey on working and employment conditions and occupational health and safety) (EQCOTESST). Montréal, Québec, Canada: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail; 2011.

  5. Wynne-Jones G, Cowen J, Jordan JL, Uthman O, Main CJ, Glozier N, et al. Absence from work and return to work in people with back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2014;71(6):448–56. doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101571.

  6. OECD. Sickness, Disability and work: breaking the Barriers. A synthesis of findings across OECD countries. OECD; 2010.

  7. Henderson M, Glozier N, Elliott KH. Long term sickness absence. BMJ. 2005;330:802–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7495.802.

  8. Hlobil H, Staal JB, Spoelstra M, Ariens GA, Smid T, van Mechelen W. Effectiveness of a return-to-work intervention for subacute low-back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31(4):249–57.

  9. Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, van Tulder M, Roine R, Jauhiainen M, Hurri H et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for neck and shoulder pain among working age adults. CLIB. 2006;4. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002194.

  10. Schonstein E, Kenny DT. The value of functional and work place assessments in achieving a timely return to work for workers with back pain. Work. 2001;16(1):31–8.

  11. Franche R-L, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J, et al. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):607–31.

  12. Loisel P, Lemaire J, Poitras S, Durand MJ, Champagne F, Stock S, et al. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of the Sherbrooke model of back pain management: a six-year follow-up study. Occup Environ Med. 2002;59:807–15.

  13. Coutu MF, Baril R, Durand MJ, Côté D, Cadieux G. Clinician-patient agreement about the work disability problem of patients having persistent pain: Why it matters. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(1):82–92. doi:10.1007/s10926-012-9387-8.

  14. Chou R, Loeser JD, Owens DK, Rosenquist RW, Atlas SJ, Baisden J, et al. Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain. Spine. 2009;34(10):1066–77. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a1390d.

  15. Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ. 1999;319(7212):780–2.

  16. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301–12. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010.

  17. Towle A, Godolphin W. Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ. 1999;319:766–71.

  18. O’Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells G, Elmslie T, Jolly E, Hollingsworth G, et al. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33:267–79. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00026-3.

  19. Légaré F, O’Connor AM, Graham ID, Saucier D, Côté L, Blais J, et al. Primary health care professionals’ views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Ottawa decision support framework in practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:380–90. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.04.011.

  20. Parsons A, Harding G, Breen A, Foster N, Pincu T, Vogel S, et al. Will shared decision making between patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and physiotherapists, osteopaths and chiropractors improve patient care? Fam Pract. 2012;29(29):203–12. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmr083.

  21. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24. doi:10.1002/chp.47.

  22. Rossi PH, Lipsey MW, Freeman HE. Expressing and assessing program theory. Evaluation: a systematic approach. 7th ed. Sage Publications; 2004. p. 133–68.

  23. Michie S, Fixsen DL, Grimshaw J, Eccles M. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci. 2009;4(40):1–6. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-40.

  24. Chen HT. Issues in constructing program theory. New Dir Progr Eval. 1990;47:7–18. doi:10.1002/ev.1551.

  25. Champagne F, Brousselle A, Hartz Z, Contandriopoulos AP. Modéliser les interventions (Modelling interventions). In: Brousselle A, Champagne F, Contandriopoulos A-P, Hartz Z, editors. L’évaluation: concepts et méthodes (Evaluation: concepts and methods). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal; 2009. p. 57–70.

  26. Dubois CA, Champagne F, Bilodeau H. Historique de l’évaluation (History of evaluation). In: Brousselle A, Champagne F, Contandriopoulos A-P, Hartz Z, editors. L’évaluation: concepts et méthodes (Evaluation: concepts and methods). Montreal, Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal; 2009. p. 13–34.

  27. Contandriopoulos AP, Champagne F, Denis JL, Avargues MC. L’évaluation dans le domaine de la santé: concepts et méthodes (Evaluation in the health field: concepts and methods). Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2000;48(6):517–24.

  28. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003.

  29. Rossi PH, Freeman HE, Lipsey MW. Expressing and assessing program theory. Evaluation: a systematic approach. 6th ed. Beverly Hill: Sage; 1999. p. 155–88.

  30. Gervais M, Pépin G, Carrière M. Triage ou comment adapter une technique de recherche à l’intervention clinique en ergothérapie (Triage or how to adapt a research technique to clinical intervention in occupational therapy). Revue Québécoise d’Ergothérapie. 2000;9:11–5.

  31. Demers L, Poissant L. Connecting with clinicians: opportunities to strengthen rehabilitation research. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(2):152–9. doi:10.1080/09638280802037936.

  32. Coutu MF, Légaré F, Durand MJ, Corbière M, Stacey D, Loisel P et al. Fostering shared decision making by occupational therapists and workers involved in accidents resulting in persistent musculoskeletal disorders: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2011;6(22):1–8. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-22

  33. Loisel P, Abenhaim L, Durand P, Esdaile JM, Suissa S, Gosselin L, et al. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine. 1997;22(24):2911–8.

  34. Geoffrion P. Le groupe de discussion (Group discussion). In: Gauthier B, editor. Recherche sociale de la problématique à la collecte de données (Social research: from the problem to data collection). 5th ed. Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2009. p. 391–414.

  35. Durand MJ, Vachon B, Loisel P, Berthelette D. Constructing the program impact theory for an evidence-based work rehabilitation program for workers with low back pain. Work. 2003;21(3):233–42.

  36. Corbière M, Durand MJ, St-Arnaud L, Briand C, Goulet C, Charpentier N et al. Return to work obstacles and coping efficacy scale—musculoskeletal disorders (ROCES-MSD). 2009.

  37. Albert V, Coutu MF, Durand MJ. Adaptation d’un questionnaire visant à mesurer les représentations liées à l’incapacité de travail (Adaptation of a questionnaire designed to measure representations related to work disability). L’Encéphale. 2013;39(3):174–82. doi:10.1016/j.encep.2012.05.002.

  38. Albert V, Coutu MF, Durand MJ. Internal consistency and construct validity of the revised illness perception questionnaire adapted for work disability following a musculoskeletal disorder. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(7):557–65. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.702849.

  39. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung W-Y, et al. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005;8:34–42. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x.

  40. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Grol R. Shared decision making: measurement using the OPTION instrument. Wales, UK: Cardiff University; 2005.

  41. O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Jacobsen MJ. The Ottawa personal decision guide for people facing tough health or social decisions. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa; 2012.

  42. Legare F, Stacey D, Pouliot S, Gauvin FP, Desroches S, Kryworuchko J, et al. Interprofessionalism and shared decision-making in primary care: a stepwise approach towards a new model. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(1):18–25. doi:10.3109/13561820.2010.490502.

  43. Légaré F, Stacey D, Gagnon S, Dumm S, Pluye P, Frosch D, et al. Validating a conceptual model for an interprofessional approach to shared decision-making: a mixed methods study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):554–64.

  44. Stacey D, Légaré F, Pouliot S, Kryworuchko J, Dunn S. Shared decision making models to inform an interprofessional perspective on decision making: a theory analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(2):164–72. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.015.

  45. St-Arnaud Y. L’interaction professionnelle: efficacité et coopération (professional interaction: effectiveness and cooperation). 2nd ed. Collection intervenir. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal; 2003.

  46. Matthias MS, Salyers MP, Frankel RM. Re-thinking shared decision-making: context matters. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(2):176–9. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.01.006.

  47. Evans L, Hardy L. Injury rehabilitation: a goal-setting intervention study. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73(3):310–9. doi:10.1080/02701367.2002.10609025.

  48. Levack WMM, Dean SG, Siegert RJ, McPherson KM. Purposes and mechanisms of goal planning in rehabilitation: the need for a critical distinction. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(12):741–9. doi:10.1080/09638280500265961.

  49. Randell KE, McEwen IR. Writing patient-centered functional goals. Phys Ther. 2000;80(12):1197–203.

  50. Theodorakis Y, Beneca A, Malliou P, Goudas M. Examining psychological factors during injury rehabilitation. J Sport Rehabil. 1997;6:355–63.

  51. Loisel P, Durand MJ, Baril R, Langley A, Falardeau M. Décider pour faciliter le retour au travail: Étude exploratoire sur les dimensions de la prise de décision dans une équipe interdisciplinaire de réadaptation au travail (decision-making to facilitate a return to work—exploratory study of the aspects of decision-making in an interdisciplinary work rehabilitation team). Montreal, Quebec: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité au travail; 2004.

  52. King E, Taylor J, Williams RM, Vanson T. The MAGIC programme; evaluation. London, UK: The Health Foundation; 2013.

  53. Maggs-Rapport F. Combining methodological approaches in research: ethnography and interpretive phenomenology. J Adv Nurs. 2000;31(1):219–25. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01243.x.

  54. O’Connor AM, Jacobsen MJ. Ottawa decision support tutorial: training practitioners in decision support. Ottawa Health Research Institute. 2007. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/ODST/. Accessed July 2007.

  55. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R. Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement. QSHC. 2003;12:93–9. doi:10.1136/qhc.12.2.93.

  56. Corbière M, Bisson J, Lauzon S, Ricard N. Factorial validation of a French short-form of the working alliance inventory. Int J Meth Psych Res. 2006;15(1):36–45. doi:10.1002/mpr.27.

  57. Amundson NE. Mattering: a foundation for employment counseling and training. J Employ Couns. 1993;30:146–52. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.1993.tb00173.x.

  58. Corbière M, Amundson NE. Perceptions of the ways of mattering by people with mental illness registered in supported employment programs. Career Dev Q. 2007;56(2):141–9. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00026.x.

  59. Broadbent E, Petriea KJ, Maina J, Weinman J. The Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60(6):631–7. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.10.020.

  60. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:25–30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105.

  61. O’Connor AM, Jacobsen MJ, Stacey D. An evidence-based approach to managing women’s decisional conflict. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2002;31:570–81. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2002.tb00083.x.

  62. Durand MJ. Étude des effets du Retour Thérapeutique au Travail chez des travailleurs absents du travail suite à une lésion professionnelle au dos (study of the effects of a therapeutic return to work in workers on sick leave following a work-related back injury). Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada: Université de Sherbrooke; 1996.

  63. Brehaut JC, O’Connor A, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003;23(4):281–92. doi:10.1177/0272989X03256005.

  64. Tercyak KP, Johnson SB, Roberts SF, Cruz AC. Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;43(1):73–84. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00146-4.

  65. Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Loisel P, Beaudet J, Imbeau D. Travailleurs de la construction ayant une dorso-lombalgie: évaluation de l’implantation de la théorie d’un programme de collaboration précoce en réadaptation au travail (construction workers suffering from lumbar back pain: evaluation of the implementation of the theory of an early collaboration occupational rehabilitation program). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Institut de recherche Robert Sauvé en santé sécurité du travail; 2007.

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center – Hôpital Charles-Le Moyne, Université de Sherbrooke, 150, Place Charles LeMoyne, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Marc Corbière & Marie-Elise Labrecque

  2. School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Marc Corbière & Marie-Elise Labrecque

  3. Research Center of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Hospital St-François d’Assise, Quebec, Canada

    France Légaré

  4. Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Dawn Stacey

  5. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

    Dawn Stacey

  6. University of British Colombia, Vancouver, Canada

    Lesley Bainbridge

Authors
  1. Marie-France Coutu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. France Légaré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie-José Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc Corbière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dawn Stacey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lesley Bainbridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marie-Elise Labrecque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-France Coutu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coutu, MF., Légaré, F., Durand, MJ. et al. Operationalizing a Shared Decision Making Model for Work Rehabilitation Programs: A Consensus Process. J Occup Rehabil 25, 141–152 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9532-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9532-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation