Table 2 An overview of CFIR domains, themes, stakeholders, and facilitators of and barriers to the PSI-WPI
CFIR domain | Theme (experiences) | Stakeholder | Facilitators | Barriers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Intervention characteristics | The PSI-WPI supports the RC and employee by providing a structure for RTW despite the time and demands put on them | RC | -The manual and worksheets give a clear work description of how to provide the PSI-WPI | -The extensiveness of the manual |
Employee | -The structured process of PSI-WPI helps the employees to actively participate -PSI-WPI offers the possibility to learn how to identify problems and solutions | -The number of on-site meetings to attend | ||
First-line manager | -PSI-WPI provide support from the RC with medical knowledge and what can be done for the employee from a rehabilitation point of view -The structure of PSI-WPI facilitates early involvement in the employees RTW process | -Needing to attend meetings on-site at the PHC | ||
Outer setting | The PSI-WPI supports employees’ needs by establishing a dialogue | RC | -Participation in PSI-WPI was facilitated by good relationships between the stakeholders | -Disagreements or conflicts between the employee and first-line manager |
Employee | -Having confidence in the first-line manager -Receiving the first-line managers acknowledgement towards the reason for SA -Participation in PSI-WPI was facilitated by good relationships between the stakeholders -Having influence over the time and venue of the three-part meeting | -Not having the first-line manager attending the three-part meeting -Disagreements or conflicts with the RC and/or first-line manager | ||
First-line manager | -Participation in PSI-WPI was facilitated by good relationships between the stakeholders -Having influence over the time and venue of the three-part meeting | -Disagreements or conflicts with the employee | ||
Inner setting | The structured work method and a shared vision of how to work with SA at the PHC helps to establish the role of the RC | RC | -The lack of a structured work method for supporting RTW caused a need for change -Having a shared vision at the PHC about how to reduce SA by seeing the workplace as an integral part of the rehabilitation -Being able to set-a-aside time for employees in the PSI-WPI -Receiving support from the principal investigator when needed | -The time-consuming aspect of the intervention i.e. PSI-WPI often took more time than care-as-usual, involves more meetings with the employee and the first-line manager and always involves the first-line manager -Juggling split roles i.e. working as an RC and as a health care professional and sometimes seeing the employee in both roles -Not having sufficient support from the PHC |
Characteristics of the individual | The PSI-WPI created a bridge between the PHC and the workplace, conditioned by good relationships | RC | -The PSI-WPI made the RCs feel appreciation of the RC role | -Symptom severity of the employee influenced RCs belief in their ability to support the employee in the PSI-WPI |
Employee | -The supportive relationship with the RC increased the motivation to participate -During the meetings with the RC they were asked supportive questions which enabled reflection | -Experiences of severe symptoms was a barrier to participate in the PSI-WPI | ||
First-line manager | -During the three-part meeting the RC asked supportive questions -It was helpful to become involved early in the employee’s RTW process | -Feeling that the PSI-WPI took more time than the workplace service-as-usual -The characteristics of the workplace could influence the possibility to offer work accommodations |