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.

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: 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.