AB1603 EVIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DECISION-MAKING ABOUT WORKPLACE INITIATIVES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES: QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF UK ORGANISATIONS

Abstract

BackgroundDecisions about whether to invest in RMD-related workplace initiatives/adaptations can be made by determining, from the relevant perspective, if benefits outweigh the costs of implementation. Little is known about what information organisations need to facilitate these decisions.ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore motivations and evidential requirements for employers to invest in workplace health initiatives.MethodsSemi-structured online interviews with representatives of large UK-based (not-for-profit and for-profit) organisations were audio-recorded. For each organisation, a line manager, director, and representative with workforce health remit were interviewed. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and subject to thematic analysis by two researchers trained in qualitative methods. Themes were agreed in discussion with the study team.ResultsWe recruited 13 representatives (5 directors, 3 line managers, and 4 with a specific remit for workforce health). Three not-for-profit organisations (local authority, university, and National Health Service) were represented by seven participants and three for-profit organisations (restaurant chain, telecoms provider, and technology company) were represented by six individuals.MotivationsAll participants believed that investment in measures to promote employee health and well-being could positively contribute to their organisation’s efficiency.…there’s loads of academic research that says… if you look after your colleagues… if you cater to their… individual needs, then that has a very positive impact on organisation performance.(Director, not-for-profit)Attraction and retention of staff – seen as increasingly difficult - was a motivating factor to invest that was shared by employers, as was the desire to avoid litigation, promote workplace camaraderie, and to maintain organisational reputation.Low RMD prevalence rates in the young workforce in one organisation (a restaurant chain) meant that these conditions did not influence decision-making. For organisations with older workforces doing heavier manual work, higher prevalence rates of RMD were a key reason to act....musculoskeletal is, like, the second biggest reason for sickness within the organisation.(Line manager, not-for-profit)Evidential requirementsUse of checklists/assessments to reveal individual RMD-related needs was commonplace throughout organisations. Self-identified health needs, typically related to line managers, would instigate a process where occupational therapist (OT) input may be sought. Requests and OT recommendations are reportedly, without exception and irrespective of cost, met and followed. No organisation had set aside a specific budget for workplace initiatives.Decisions involving significant investments in workforce health initiatives were usually made by committees or by small teams comprising senior staff and directors. Line managers and those with a health remit would put forward a case for investment to these bodies:…we would pull together a bit of a proposal really on what that would look like…what is the impact of it?...we support it with facts…even benchmarks of what’s going on in the outside.(Health remit representative, for-profit)Evidence from OTs/other health professionals, in-house absenteeism data, workforce survey results/informal feedback from colleagues, benchmarking data, and academic/official report findings were used to make a case for investment.ConclusionThe demand for RMD-specific interventions varies according to needs of particular workforces. Despite diversity of organisation type, workforce factors (i.e. demographic factors, nature of work) and employer roles, common processes for informing investment decisions and typical evidence requirements have been identified. Findings can inform the development and evaluation of workplace interventions to benefit people with RMD.AcknowledgementsThis work is undertaken as part of the Centre for Musculoskeletal Health and Work, funded by Versus Arthritis and the Medical Research Council. We thank study participants.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.