14th Aug 2018 published by: Mpho
In Australia the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is a well-known counseling service for clients experiencing a wide range of serious psychological and mental health difficulties. Research indicates that EAPs are cost-neutral for an employer (Blaze-Templ and Howat, 1997), however, a more recent Australian study indicates that these programs have notably low rates of utilization whilst the monitoring and evaluation of EAPs in Australia is at best patchy or perhaps even insufficient and inadequate. (Compton & McManus, 2015). In certain European countries such as Finland and the Netherlands, a different and more proactive approach has been developed to control sickness absence among workers. In several well-designed scientific studies (Taimela et al 2008a, 2008b, 2010), it has been shown that such a computer-based Health Risk Assessment sent out to eligible employees have a remarkably high response rate of about 70%.
The novelty of the Scandinavian approach lies in the use of smart, evidence-based algorithms that categorizes employees in ‘Low Risk’, ‘Intermediate Risk’ and ‘High Risk’ of sickness absence. In summary, employees who reported problems with future working ability, pain, impairment due to musculoskeletal problems, insomnia or insufficient sleep, frequent stress or fatigue, or had a high depression score, were classified into the ‘High Risk’ group. All respondents with a high-risk profile were invited to attend a targeted Occupational Health Program operated by their own occupational nurses and physicians. Respondents to the digital health risk appraisal received personal feedback of their survey results and an invitation to a consultation at their local occupational health service (OHS). The main purpose of the consultation was the construction of an action plan, and if appropriate, referral to a further consultation by a medical specialist or psychologist.
In comparison with the control group, employees that received the targeted occupational health program showed on average a reduction of 11 absence days in the subsequent 12 months. Interestingly, the intervention was especially effective in the subgroups of employees who were certain that they would not be able to continue working in their current job due to health-related reasons, had co-morbidities, or severe physical impairment at work.
Importantly, a modifying effect of age, gender, working status, depressive symptoms, or prior sickness absence on the effectiveness of this targeted occupation health intervention was not found. The latter indicates that such a targeted and preventative occupational health intervention could be a useful adjunct to existing EAPs in Australia to further reduce sickness absenteeism in a cost-effective manner.
Blaze-Temple D, Howat P. Cost benefit of an Australian EAP. Employee Assist Q. 1997;12:1–24. doi: 10.1300/J022v12n03_01.
Robert-Leigh Compton & John G. McManus (2015) Employee Assistance Programs in Australia: Evaluating Success, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 30:1-2, 32-45, DOI: 10.1080/15555240.2015.998971; https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2015.998971
Taimela S, Malmivaara A, Justen S, Läärä E, Sintonen H, Tiekso J, et al. The effectiveness of two occupational health intervention programmes in reducing sickness absence among employees at risk. Two randomised controlled trials. Occup Environ Med. 2008a;65:236–241. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.032706.
Taimela S, Justen S, Aronen P, Sintonen H, Läärä E, Malmivaara A, et al. An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med. 2008b;65:242–248. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.033167.
Taimela S, Aronen P, Malmivaara A, Sintonen H, Tiekso J, Aro T. Effectiveness of a targeted occupational health intervention in workers with high risk of sickness absence: baseline characteristics and adherence as effect modifying factors in a randomized controlled trial. J Occup Rehabil. 2010 Mar;20(1):14-20. doi: 10.1007/s10926-009-9221-0. PubMed PMID: 20012343; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2832907.
