Sickness absence in student nursing assistants following a preventive intervention programme

• Published in: Occupational medicine (Oxford) Vol. 61; no. 1; pp. 57 - 61
• Main Authors: Svensson, A. L., Marott, J. L., Suadicani, P., Mortensen, O. S., Ebbehoj, N. E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01.01.2011
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Denmark; Female; Health participants; Health Status; Humans; Inservice Training; Low Back Pain - prevention & control; Male; Medical personnel; Medical sciences; Moving and Lifting Patients; Nurses' Aides - education; Program Evaluation; Prospective Studies; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Sick Leave - statistics & numerical data; Stress, Psychological - prevention & control; Denmark; Europe; Human; Sanitary program; Disease; Health staff; Health promotion; Absenteeism; Operation; Student; Sickness absence; intervention study; Prevention; Efficiency; Assistant nurses; Nurse
• ISSN: 0962-7480; 1471-8405; 1471-8405
• DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqq142

We have previously shown that a multidimensional programme combining physical training, patient transfer techniques and stress management significantly reduced sickness absence rates in student nurse assistants (NAs) after 14 months of follow-up. At follow-up, the control group had reduced SF-36 scores for general health perception [general health (GH)], psychological well-being [mental health (MH)] and energy/fatigue [vitality (VT)] compared with the intervention group, which remained at the baseline level for all three measures. To ascertain whether this effect remained after a further 36 months of follow-up and to analyse the association of GH, MH and VT scores with sickness absence. This was a cluster randomized prospective study. The original study involved assessment at baseline and follow-up at 14 months (the duration of the student NA course). Of 568 subjects from the original intervention study, 306 (54%) completed a postal questionnaire at 36 months. Sickness absence increased in both groups between the first and second follow-up. At the second follow-up, the intervention group had a mean of 18 days of sickness absence compared with 25 in the control group but this was not significant. GH at 14 months follow-up was found to predict sickness absence levels after 3 years. MH and VT scores showed an inverse association with sickness absence but the results were not significant. The results suggest that the initial intervention did not have a sustained effect on sickness absence 36 months after initial follow-up of the study group.