Opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain: modified nominal group technique

References

• Waddell G, Burton AK. Is work good for your health and well-being. London: Department for Work and Pensions; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Kinoshita Y, Furukawa TA, Kinoshita K, et al. Supported employment for adults with severe mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(9):CD008297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond GR, Drake RE, Becker DR. Generalizability of the individual placement and support (IPS) model of supported employment outside the US. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(1):32–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modini M, Tan L, Brinchmann B, et al. Supported employment for people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;209(1):14–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinchmann B, Widding-Havneraas T, Modini M, et al. A meta-regression of the impact of policy on the efficacy of individual placement and support. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13129
   Google Scholar
• Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356–2367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullinger J. UK Statistics Authority, London, UK. 2015 [cited 2020 Jan 6]. Available from: http://qna.files.parliament.uk/qna-attachments/346983%5Coriginal%5CPQ%2061.pdf
   Google Scholar
• NAV. Fortsatt stabilt sykefravaer i Oslo. 2017. Available from: https://www.nav.no/no/Lokalt/Oslo/Nyheter/fortsatt-stabilt-sykefravaer-i-oslo
   Google Scholar
• DWP. Improving lives. The work, health and disability green paper. London: Department for Work and Pensions; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2163–2196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froud R, Patterson S, Eldridge S, et al. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people’s lives. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15(1):50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turk DC, Rudy TE. Toward an empirically derived taxonomy of chronic pain patients: integration of psychological assessment data. J Consul Clin Psychol. 1988;56(2):233–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinheiro MB, Ferreira ML, Refshauge K, et al. Symptoms of depression as a prognostic factor for low back pain: a systematic review. Spine J. 2016;16(1):105–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinheiro MB, Ferreira ML, Refshauge K, et al. Symptoms of depression and risk of new episodes of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthrit Care Res. 2015;67(11):1591–1603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, et al. Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2368–2383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waddell G, Burton AK, Kendall N. Vocational rehabilitation – what works, for whom, and when? London: Vocational Rehabilitation Task Group; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Waddell G, Burton AK. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain at work: evidence review. Occup Med. 2001;51(2):124–135.
   Google Scholar
• Burton AK, Balague F, Cardon G. On behalf of the COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for Prevention in Low Back Pain, et al. Chapter 2. European guidelines for prevention in low back pain: November 2004. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(S2):S136–S68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherrer Y. Working with common rheumatologic disorders. A physician’s guide to return to work. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, et al. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320(7240):976–980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice DB, Canedo-Ayala M, Turner KA, et al. Use of the nominal group technique to identify stakeholder priorities and inform survey development: an example with informal caregivers of people with scleroderma. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e019726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redman S, Carrick S, Cockburn J, et al. Consulting about priorities for the NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre: how good is the nominal group technique. Aust NZ J Public Health. 1997;21(3):250–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linnemorken LTB, Sveinsdottir V, Knutzen T, et al. Protocol for the individual placement and support (IPS) in pain trial: a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of IPS for patients with chronic pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):655–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varga-Atkins T, Bunyan N, McIsaac J, et al. The nominal group technique: a practical guide for facilitators. Written for the ELESIG small grants scheme. Liverpool (UK): University of Liverpool; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen KL, Irvin E, Collie A, et al. Effectiveness of workplace interventions in return-to-work for musculoskeletal, pain-r and mental health conditions: an update of the evidence and messages for practitioners. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(1):1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DWP. Improving lives. The future of work, health and disability. London: Department for Work and Pensions. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• DWP. Voluntary reporting on disability, mental health and wellbeing. London (UK): Department for Work and Pensions; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• NHS. The NHS Long Term Plan. NHS; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• EU-OSHA. Priorities for occupational safety and health research in Europe: 2013–2020. Luxembourg (UK): Work EAfSaHa; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• SIP. Thematic network on the societal impact of pain. Joint Initiative of the European Pain Federation (EFIC); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Drake RE, Bond GR, Goldman HH, et al. Individual placement and support services boost employment for people with serious mental illnesses, but funding is lacking. Health Aff. 2016;35(6):1098–1105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmer-Hirschberg OH, Rescher NH. On the epistemology of the inexact sciences. Santa Monica (CA): The RAND Corporation; 1959.
   Google Scholar
• Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP. A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud. 2001;38(2):195–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalkey N. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 1962.
   Google Scholar
• Fitch K, Berstein S, Aguilar M, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Baker J, Lovell K, Harris N. How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Res. 2006;14(1):59–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984;74(9):979–983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar