Feasibility of Family Group Conference to promote return-to-work of persons receiving work disability benefit

Figures & data

Table 1. Key areas of focus, outcome of interest and data source.

Area of focus	Description	Study question	Outcome	Data source(s)
Demand	Actual use	Who of the targeted population participated in Family Group Conference?	–Participant response –Participant sociodemography	–Questionnaire participant –Questionnaire labour expert
Acceptability	Reactions of participants, labour experts and facilitators to Family Group Conference	Is an Family Group Conference suitable to implement reintegration?	–Perceived satisfaction –Appropriateness	–Questionnaire participant –Telephone interview participant
Implementation	Likelihood that Family Group Conference can be implemented as planned, and delivered when resources and commitment are constrained	To what extent can Family Group Conference be successfully implemented among participants?	–Number of executed Return to Work Plans –Effect on participant	–Questionnaire participant, labour expert, Family Group Conference facilitator –Telephone interview participant, labour expert
Limited efficacy	Reactions of participants to the use of Family Group Conference	To what extent does Family Group Conference show positive effects on key intermediate variables? What is the content of the Return to Work Plans?	–Perceived health –Level of participation –Work status –Main question, action, actor in Return to Work Plan	–Questionnaire –Participation ladder –Telephone interview participant –Return to Work Plan

Figure 1. Flow-diagram and measures.

Table 2. Baseline demographic characteristics of participants and non-participants in Family Group Conference.

	Participants (N = 9)	Non-participants (N = 19)
Mean age in years (SD, range)	34.7 (12.7; 19-53)	32.6 (10.2; 20-48)
Female (N, %)	5 (55.6)	8 (42.1)
Educational level
Low	4 (44.4)	10 (52.7)
Intermediate	5 (55.6)	7 (36.9)
High	0	1 (5.2)
Urbanisation
Rural (<10.000)	3 (33.3)	4 (21.1)
Midsize urban (10.000–100.000)	2 (22.2)	8 (42.1)
Urban (>100.000)	4 (44.4)	7 (36.8)

Table 3. Participants’ (n = 8) evaluation of labour experts, Family Group Conference, and Return to Work Plan directly after Family Group Conference (T1).

Statement	Disagree^a	Agree^b
Labour experts
The labour expert told me what went well	3	5
The labour expert informed me of his/her concerns	3	5
The labour expert informed me of consequences if a rehabilitation plan was not made	6	2
The labour expert gave me information about possible solutions	2	6
The information given by the labour expert was important	1	7
The information given by the labour expert was clear	1	7
Family Group Conference
I felt understood by the Family Group Conference participants	1	7
I could say and ask what I wanted	1	7
I could express my worries	1	7
I could say what I thought went well	1	7
I could work on a solution	1	7
Many new ideas were discussed	3	5
I felt at ease during the Family Group Conference	1	7
I did what I could do during the Family Group Conference	0	8
I am satisfied about the contributions of all participants^c	0	7
Return To Work Plan
Through the Return to Work Plan:
I have more confidence for the future	1	7
I will be able to better cope with my situation	2	6
My situation will improve	3	5
The appointments in the Return to Work Plan:
Are good	0	8
Are feasible	1	7
Are surprising	3	5
Are likely to improve my situation	3	5
Will help me make decisions in the future	2	6
About the Return to Work Plan:
I will adhere to the agreements in the plan	0	8
I think others will adhere to the agreements in the plan^c	0	7
I agree with the plan	1	7
I think it is good that the plan was made by all of us	1	7
It makes me ask sooner for help from the other participants	2	6
It made me more capable of making the right decisions	3	5
It improved my contacts with the other participants	4	4
It gave me more self-confidence	4	4

^a Strongly disagree/disagree/neutral.

^b Agree/strongly agree.

^c 1 case missing.

Table 4. Participants’ (n = 6) opinions on changes due to Return to Work Plan, three months (T2) after Family Group Conference.

Statement	Disagree^a	Agree^b
Through the Return to Work Plan:
I have more confidence for the future	2	4
I ask sooner for help from family and friends	2	4
I have more self-confidence	2	4
I’m doing better	4	2
I give help sooner to family and friends	3	3
I’m better able to make the right decisions	5	1
I have better contact with other participants in the Family Group Conference	3	3
I more often have contact with other participants in the Family Group Conference	4	2
My situation has improved	0	6
I’m better able to cope with my situation	2	4

^a Strongly disagree/disagree/neutral.

^b Agree/strongly agree.