Daniëlle Volker

Tilburg University, Tilburg, North Brabant, Netherlands

Are you Daniëlle Volker?

Claim your profile

Publications (5)9.86 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Considering the costs incurred by sickness absence and the implications for the workers' quality of life, a fast return to work (RTW) is important. Self-efficacy (SE) seems to be an important predictor of RTW for employees with mental health problems. The predictive value of return-to-work self-efficacy (RTW-SE) has not been examined in employees on long-term sickness absence due to any cause. The aim of this study is to investigate whether RTW-SE is a predictor of time to RTW in long-term sick-listed employees with all-cause sickness absence. Furthermore, the relative contribution of RTW-SE in predicting RTW will be examined compared to health-related, job-related and personal factors. Methods In a longitudinal study, sick-listed employees who were currently on sick leave for more than 4 weeks filled out a self-report questionnaire. Demographics, health-related, personal, and job-related factors, and RTW-SE were measured. Employees were followed for 2 years to determine the duration until full RTW. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with time to RTW. Results Data were collected from 493 sick-listed employees. RTW-SE was a significant predictor of RTW. In a multivariate model, low RTW-SE, the thought of not being able to work while having symptoms (illness behaviour) and having chronic medical conditions were predictors of a longer duration until RTW. Conclusion When guiding long-term sick-listed employees, it is important to focus on factors such as SE and illness behaviour, instead of just focusing on the symptoms of the sick-listed employee.
    Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 10/2014; · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The uptake of guideline recommendations in general practice can potentially be improved by designing implementation interventions that are tailored to prospectively identify barriers. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding the most effective and efficient approaches to tailoring. Our study provides an insight into the usefulness of tailored interventions to prospectively identified barriers affecting the uptake of guideline recommendations for anxiety and depressive disorders experienced by general practitioners (GPs) in their local context. A qualitative study was conducted, in which 23 GPs gave informed consent and 14 finally participated. To explore the barriers affecting the uptake of guideline recommendations, a face-to-face interview was conducted with each GP to generate a personalised list. In response to this list, interventions were tailored to remove the barriers experienced by the GPs. To examine the perceived usefulness of the tailored interventions, telephone interviews were conducted after one year and coded through thematic coding. The analysis was descriptive in nature. The most frequently perceived barriers were: a lack of knowledge and skills, no agreement on guideline recommendations, negative outcome expectancy, low self-efficacy, no consensus with patients, and a lack of information about treatments provided by mental health professionals, together with waiting lists. The tailored interventions 'peer group supervision' and 'individualised telephone consultations' were perceived as useful by most GPs. Besides the tailored interventions, a perceived benefit of using a self-rating scale, measuring depressive and anxiety symptoms, and the idea of delivering better patient care, were supportive in the uptake of guideline recommendations. Our findings suggest that tailoring interventions to prospectively identified barriers, affecting the uptake of guideline recommendations for anxiety and depressive disorders, as perceived by GPs, may enhance the implementation of these guideline recommendations.
    BMC Family Practice 07/2013; 14(1):94. · 1.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Common mental disorders (CMD) have a major impact on both society and individual workers, so return to work (RTW) is an important issue. In The Netherlands, the occupational physician plays a central role in the guidance of sick-listed workers with respect to RTW. Evidence-based guidelines are available, but seem not to be effective in improving RTW in people with CMD. An intervention supporting the occupational physician in guidance of sick-listed workers combined with specific guidance regarding RTW is needed. A blended E-health module embedded in collaborative occupational health care is now available, and comprises a decision aid supporting the occupational physician and an E-health module, Return@Work, to support sick-listed workers in the RTW process. The cost-effectiveness of this intervention will be evaluated in this study and compared with that of care as usual. This study is a two-armed cluster randomized controlled trial, with randomization done at the level of occupational physicians. Two hundred workers with CMD on sickness absence for 4-26 weeks will be included in the study. Workers whose occupational physician is allocated to the intervention group will receive the collaborative occupational health care intervention. Occupational physicians allocated to the care as usual group will give conventional sickness guidance. Follow-up assessments will be done at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after baseline. The primary outcome is duration until RTW. The secondary outcome is severity of symptoms of CMD. An economic evaluation will be performed as part of this trial. It is hypothesized that collaborative occupational health care intervention will be more (cost)-effective than care as usual. This intervention is innovative in its combination of a decision aid by email sent to the occupational physician and an E-health module aimed at RTW for the sick-listed worker.
    Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 01/2013; 9:529-37. · 2.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based best practices for incorporation into an optimal multilevel intervention for suicide prevention should be identifiable in the literature. To identify effective interventions for the prevention of suicidal behavior. Review of systematic reviews found in the Pubmed, Cochrane, and DARE databases. Steps include risk-of-bias assessment, data extraction, summarization of best practices, and identification of synergistic potentials of such practices in multilevel approaches. Six relevant systematic reviews were found. Best practices identified as effective were as follows: training general practitioners (GPs) to recognize and treat depression and suicidality, improving accessibility of care for at-risk people, and restricting access to means of suicide. Although no outcomes were reported for multilevel interventions or for synergistic effects of multiple interventions applied together, indirect support was found for possible synergies in particular combinations of interventions within multilevel strategies. A number of evidence-based best practices for the prevention of suicide and suicide attempts were identified. Research is needed on the nature and extent of potential synergistic effects of various preventive activities within multilevel interventions.
    Crisis The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 09/2011; 32(6):319-33. · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT: Anxiety and depressive disorders are highly prevalent disorders and are mostly treated in primary care. The management of these disorders by general practitioners is not always consistent with prevailing guidelines because of a variety of factors. Designing implementation strategies tailored to prospectively identified barriers could lead to more guideline-recommended care. Although tailoring of implementation strategies is promoted in practice, little is known about the effect on improving the quality of care for the early recognition, diagnosis, and stepped care treatment allocation in patients with anxiety or depressive disorders in general practice. This study examines whether the tailored strategy supplemented with training and feedback is more effective than providing training and feedback alone. In this cluster randomised controlled trial, a total of 22 general practices will be assigned to one of two conditions: (1) training, feedback, and tailored interventions and (2) training and feedback. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients who have been recognised to have anxiety and/or depressive disorder. The secondary outcome measures in patients are severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms, level of functioning, expectation towards and experience with care, quality of life, and economic costs. Measures are taken after the start of the intervention at baseline and at three- and six-month follow-ups. Secondary outcome measures in general practitioners are adherence to guideline-recommended care in care that has been delivered, the proportion of antidepressant prescriptions, and number of referrals to specialised mental healthcare facilities. Data will be gathered from the electronic medical patient records from the patients included in the study. In a process evaluation, the identification of barriers to change and the relations between prospectively identified barriers and improvement interventions selected for use will be described, as well as the factors that influence the provision of guideline-recommended care. It is hypothesised that the adherence to guideline recommendations will be improved by designing implementation interventions that are tailored to prospectively identified barriers in the local context of general practitioners. Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the most effective and efficient approaches to tailoring, including how barriers should be identified and how interventions should be selected to address the barriers. NTR1912.
    Implementation Science 07/2011; 6:75. · 2.37 Impact Factor