Objectives To explore the motivations, barriers and potential solutions from professionals’ perspectives for achieving effective interdisciplinary practice, focusing on communication and collaboration to support work participation and facilitate patients’ return-to-work (RTW).DesignQualitative exploratory interview study using thematic analysis.SettingPrimary and work-focused healthcare.Participants22 healthcare professionals, including occupational physicians (n=5), social insurance physicians (n=5), general practitioners (n=7) and occupational physiotherapists (n=5), were purposively recruited. All participants had at least 1 year of experience and were actively involved in patient care.InterventionsNone.Primary outcome measuresIdentified motivations, experienced barriers and proposed solutions for improving communication and collaboration across disciplines in work-focused healthcare.ResultsParticipating healthcare professionals emphasised the importance of early, proactive and person-centred communication across care domains, particularly in complex or stagnating RTW trajectories. Key barriers included a lack of shared knowledge and common goals, limited understanding of each other’s roles, time constraints, fragmented systems and regulatory restrictions. Proposed solutions focused on clearer coordination of care, improved role clarity and development of a secure, cross-domain digital communication platform to streamline information exchange.ConclusionsEffective work-focused healthcare requires improved interprofessional communication and patient-centred collaboration. This study highlights when collaboration is most valuable, identifies key barriers and outlines feasible practical solutions. Future research should focus on developing and implementing guidelines that clarify communication pathways and coordination mechanisms within interdisciplinary teams.

Background: Effective collaboration throughout the full cycle of care is essential for value-based health care. In the Netherlands, occupational health care and curative health care traditionally operate as 2 separate sectors. As a consequence, effective communication and robust collaboration between professionals working in these sectors are lacking. Digital collaborative care platforms (ie, digital systems that facilitate communication and collaboration between health care professionals) are recognized as a promising solution to address the fragmentation of work-focused health care (health care that supports people on long-term sick leave in staying at or returning to work). A human-centered design (HCD) approach can help ensure that such platforms align with professionals’ needs by involving them throughout the design process. Objective: This study examines the experiences of (work-focused) health care professionals, including occupational physicians, insurance physicians, medical specialists, and general practitioners, during the design phase of a real-world HCD process for developing a digital platform to support collaborative care. The study specifically focused on understanding how these professionals perceive this collaborative approach. Methods: A mixed method study design was employed, combining observations of 17 design sessions with semistructured interviews with health care professionals as intended users of the platform. Observational data captured session dynamics, while interview data provided deeper insights into professionals’ experiences with the participatory HCD approach. Results: Health care professionals were generally motivated to contribute, driven by professional interest, social encouragement, or a desire to improve practice. They valued the open and informal atmosphere of the design sessions and described their role as actively sharing practical experiences and identifying bottlenecks in current practice. Participants emphasized the importance of clear goals, good preparation, and iterative involvement for meaningful engagement. Barriers identified included limited session time, constraints of virtual interaction, and uncertainty about the commercial context of the platform. Some professionals felt unsure about the relevance of their input or experienced limited interaction, especially when the session’s purpose was unclear. Others noted that the use of a mock-up platform as a conversational foundation, familiarity with similar system interfaces, and well-guided, structured discussions facilitated their input. Positive experiences included a sense of impact through involvement in the design process, note-taking as part of active user engagement, and a safe environment for open and constructive feedback. Participants recommended a clearer explanation of the platform’s broader aims in advance, enhanced participant preparation, and opportunities for multidisciplinary co-creation in future sessions. Conclusions: Health care professionals valued being part of the collaborative design process, but their engagement and perceived contribution were highly dependent on how the design sessions were facilitated. Structuring design sessions with clear expectations, preparatory tools, and opportunities for follow-up can support more effective, foundational co-creation in digital platform development for collaboration among professionals providing work-focused health care.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare delivery focuses on optimizing care provided by measuring the healthcare outcomes which are most important to the clients relative to the total care costs. However, the understanding of what adds value for clients during work disability assessment is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To explore what medical examiners (MEs) perceive as valuable during the work disability assessment process, by exploring possible: 1) facilitators, 2) barriers and 3) opportunities to add value for the client during the work disability assessment. METHODS: For this explorative qualitative study, 7 semi-structured interviews were conducted with MEs in the Netherlands. Thematic coding was performed for all interviews. RESULTS: A large variety of facilitators (n = 22), barriers (n = 17) and opportunities (n = 11) were identified and inductively subdivided into four main themes: 1) coherent process, including all time related aspects, 2) interdisciplinary collaboration, including all aspects related to the collaboration between the ME and other professionals, 3) client-centred interaction, including all aspects related to the supportive interplay from the ME towards the client, and 4) information provision on all aspects during the work disability assessment process towards the client to ensure a valuable work disability assessment process. CONCLUSIONS: The overview of identified possible facilitators, barriers and opportunities to add value for clients from the perspective of the ME may stimulate improvement in the current work disability assessment practice and to better match the client needs.

Purpose: To explore the experiences and needs concerning work-focused healthcare of patients experiencing problems with work participation due to cardiovascular disease based on all facets of person-centred care. Methods: Nineteen patients who experienced or continue to experience problems with work participation due to cardiovascular disease participated in semi-structured interviews preceded by preparatory written assignments. The transcripts were analysed by means of directed qualitative content analysis. Adapted principles of the Picker Institute for Person-Centred Care provided a template for the analysis. Results: 28 experiences and needs emerged and were grouped into the eight principles for person-centred work-focused healthcare. Randomly presenting one theme for each of the eight principles, the themes included: (1) frequent encounters with occupational healthcare professionals; (2) substantive work-related advice; (3) transparency in communication; (4) support for family; (5) information provision on the work-focused healthcare process; (6) personal control during the process; (7) empathy for the personal situation; and (8) tailored work-focused support. Conclusions: The identified experiences and needs for work-focused healthcare of patients experiencing problems with work participation due to cardiovascular disease clearly indicate the need to improve the delivery of person-centred work-focused healthcare to better meet the individual needs of patients.

Background: To facilitate the maintenance or resumption of participation in work for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), there is a need for high-quality work-focused healthcare. According to the concept of value-based healthcare, quality of care can be enhanced by understanding the outcomes that matter most to patients. However, a major challenge in assessing quality of work-focused healthcare in practice is the lack of consensus on which work-related outcomes should be measured. Objective: The objective of this study was to identify a standard set of key work-related outcomes for patients with CVD to be used in practice of work-focused healthcare in the Netherlands, including standardised outcome measures and associated case mix factors. This standard set is intended to assist occupational and other health professionals in delivering work-focused healthcare that meets a patient’s individual needs regarding work participation, and to enhance patients’ engagement in their own work-focused care process. Methods: A 2-round RAND-modified Delphi process was conducted. The process included literature searches, consecutive research team meetings, and several meetings and rounds of voting by a working group. The working group consisted of patients with CVD (n = 6) and health professionals representing different stakeholders (n = 11) involved in work-focused healthcare for this patient population in the Netherlands. Consensus was reached over four phases: (1) establishing the scope of the standard set and defining the population, (2) prioritising and defining the outcome domains, (3) selecting the outcome measures for the most important domains, including clinical data and patient-reported data, and (4) selecting and defining case mix factors. Results: A 23-item patient-reported questionnaire was developed, called the Value@WORK-Q23, including questions on nine work-related outcome domains considered most important for patients with CVD: (1) work participation, (2) physical work ability, (3) mental work ability, (4) suitable work, (5) support from the work environment, (6) flexibility of the work environment, (7) communication with the patient, (8) person-centredness, and (9) interdisciplinary communication. In addition, nine case mix variables was selected, comprising demographic-, disease-, and work factors. Conclusions: The Value@WORK-Q23 provides guidance on measuring the most important work-related outcomes for patients with CVD. Using this work-related set in practice, in addition to existing disease-specific standard sets for CVD may facilitate the provision of high-value work-focused healthcare for this patient population.

Purpose: To identify, appraise, and synthesize qualitative research evidence exploring patients’ needs regarding work-focused healthcare. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement guidelines to identify studies reporting patients’ needs regarding work-focused healthcare. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo and Web of Science) were systematically searched from January 2000 until May 2023 and screened in duplicate by pairs of two reviewers. Inclusion criteria were qualitative data collection method, and patients’ perspectives regarding healthcare focusing on work when experiencing work-related problems due to chronic medical conditions. Data extraction and synthesis was executed by means of an inductive thematic analysis approach. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CASP Qualitative Study checklist. Confidence in the review findings was assessed through the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach. Results: Out of 23,677 records, 97 qualitative studies were included. Needs regarding four main themes were identified: (1) Substantive guidance, which comprises the specific content of work-focused healthcare; (2) Clear and continuous process, which comprises clarification and optimization of the work-focused healthcare process; (3) Supportive attitude and behavior, which comprises a positive and supportive attitude and behavior from professionals towards the patients; and (4) Tailored approach, which comprises the delivery of tailored care to the individuals’ needs. 17 subthemes were identified. Conclusion: The broader insight in patients’ needs in work-focused healthcare can help (occupational) healthcare professionals adopt a more patient-centred approach in practice.

Background: People living with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) often experience work participation problems. Good work-focused healthcare, defined as the received advice, treatment, and guidance focusing on work participation, can support the patient and work place. However, experiences with work-focused healthcare are generally not always positive which is a barrier for work participation. Therefore, the objective of this study is to gain insight into the work-focused healthcare journey from the perspective of patients with work participation problems due to CVD, to understand their experiences and needs, and to derive opportunities for improving work-focused healthcare service at a system level. Methods: Semi-structured interviews, preceded by preparatory assignments, were conducted with 17 patients who experience(d) work participation problems due to CVD. The patient experience journey map (PEJM) approach was used to visualize the patients’ work-focused healthcare journey, including experiences and needs over time and place, from which opportunities to improve work-focused healthcare from the patient’s perspective were derived. Results: An aggregated PEJM consisting of six phases was composed and graphically mapped. The first phase, working, represents a period in which CVD health problems and subsequent functional limitations occur. The next two phases, short- and long-term sick leave, represent a period of full sick leave. The last three phases, start-, partial-, and full vocational reintegration, focus on the process of return to work that takes place ranging from a few months up to several years after sick-listing. For each phase the touchpoints, timespan, stakeholders, activities, experiences and needs from the perspective of the patients were identified. Finally, for better work-focused healthcare nine opportunities for improvement were derived from the PEJM, e.g. emphasize the need for work adjustment prior to the medical intervention, provide more personalized advice on handling work limitations, and putting more compelling pressure on the employer to create suitable work positions for their employees. Discussion/conclusion: This paper contributes insights to provide a more patient-centered work-focused healthcare trajectory for patients employed in paid jobs when living with CVD. The PEJM provides an understanding of the patients’ perspectives throughout their work-focused healthcare journey and highlights opportunities for improvement towards a better suited and seamless patient journey, Although this research was conducted within the Dutch healthcare system, it can be assumed that the findings on integrated work-focused healthcare are largly transferable to other healthcare systems.