Background

From many empirical and theoretical points of view, the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in work rehabilitation for pain due to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is justified but typically the SDM model applies to a one on one encounter between a healthcare provider and a patient and not to an interdisciplinary team.

Objectives

To adapt and implement an SDM program adapted to the realities of work rehabilitation for pain associated with a MSD. More specific objectives are to adapt an SDM program applicable to existing rehabilitation programs, and to evaluate the extent of implementation of the SDM program in four rehabilitation centres.

Method

For objective one, we will use a mixed perspective combining a theory-based development program/intervention and a user-based perspective. The users are the occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical coordinators. The strategies for developing an SDM program will include consulting the scientific literature and group consensus with clinicians-experts. A sample of convenience of eight OTs, four clinical coordinators and four psychologists all of whom have been working full-time in MSD rehabilitation for more than two years will be recruited from four collaborating rehabilitation centres. For objective two, using the same criteria as for objective one, we will first train eight OTs in SDM. Second, using a descriptive design, the extent to which the SDM program has been implemented will be assessed through observations of the SDM process. The observation data will be triangulated with the dyadic working alliance questionnaire, and findings from a final individual interview with each OT. A total of five patients per trained OT will be recruited, for a total of 40 patients. Patients will be eligible if they have a work-related disability for more than 12 weeks due to musculoskeletal pain and plan to start their work rehabilitation programs.

Discussion

This study will be the first evaluation of the program and it is expected that improvements will be made prior to a broader-scale implementation. The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of decision making, patients' quality of life, and reduce the duration of their work-related disability by improving the services offered during the rehabilitation process.

OBJECTIVE

To generate hypotheses regarding factors that might influence engagement in collaborative practice.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using in-depth interviews.

SETTING

Participants interviewed each other in dyads. The pairing was based upon geographical location and proximity to each other.

PARTICIPANTS

Eight professionals from the disciplines of medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and massage therapy.

METHOD

Semistructured interviews, lasting 30 to 45 minutes each, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were read by all research team members using independent content analysis for common words, phrases, statements, or units of text for key themes. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting, the team used an iterative process of comparing and contrasting key themes until consensus was reached. The transcripts were then analyzed further for subthemes using NVivo software.

MAIN FINDINGS

Initial findings suggest that some common characteristics grounded in family history, school experiences, social interactions, and professional training might influence collaborative practice choices. The narrative form of the interview broke down interpersonal and interprofessional barriers, creating a new level of trust and respect that could improve professional collaboration.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that life experiences from childhood into later adulthood can and do influence professional choices.

Brought together by the newly formed Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS), recognized national leaders in the 6 health sciences disciplines consider the environment for conducting interdisciplinary health research (IDHR) in Canada. Based on first-hand knowledge and thoughtful reflection, the authors argue that although much progress has been made in support of IDHR in Canada, the practical experience of researchers does not always bear this out. This article examines government, industry and academia to identify the cultural and structural characteristics that demand, promote or prevent IDHR in each sector. At its heart is the question, How can universities best support and enhance IDHR, not only for the benefit of science, but also to meet the growing needs of industry and government for intellectual capital?

Focusing on the predominant health sciences disciplines, the authors define IDHR as a team of researchers, solidly grounded in their respective disciplines, who come together around an important and challenging health issue, the research question for which is determined by a shared understanding in an interactive and iterative process. In addition, they suggest that IDHR is directly linked to translational research, which is the application of basic science to clinical practice and the generation of scientific questions through clinical observation.

This analysis of academic, industry and government sectors is not intended to offer rigorous data on the current state of IDHR in Canada. Rather, the goal is to stimulate research-policy dialogue by suggesting a number of immediate measures that can help promote IDHR in Canada.

Recommended measures to support IDHR are aimed at better resourcing and recognition (by universities and granting agencies), along with novel approaches to training, such as government- and industry-based studentships. In addition, we recommend that professional organizations reconsider their policies on publication and governance. Although intended to maintain professional scopes of practice, these policies also serve to entrench disciplinary boundaries in research.

We conclude by suggesting a number of research questions for a more rigorous assessment of the climate for IDHR in Canada. We call for an inventory and comparative analysis of academic centres, institutes and consortiums in Canada that strive to facilitate IDHR; an examination of the impact of professional organizations on health research, and on IDHR in particular; and a systematic review of research training opportunities that promote IDHR, with a view to identifying and replicating proven models.