Table 2.
Mean scores on outcomes at baseline and 6 months’ follow-up and multilevel analysis results
| Intervention group (n = 49) | Control group (n = 50) | ML model crude | ML model adjusteda | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | (SD) | M | (SD) | B | (SE) | [95 % CI] | B | (SE) | [95 % CI] | |
| Primary outcome | ||||||||||
| Self-efficacy regarding joint problem-solving (range 3–21) | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 16.3 | (2.2) | 17.0 | (1.4) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 17.2 | (2.3) | 16.6 | (2.2) | 0.68 | (0.58) | [−0.46 to 1.82] | 0.54 | (0.62) | [−0.68 to 1.76] |
| Secondary outcomes | ||||||||||
| Attitude regarding joint problem-solving (range 3–15) | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 12.9 | (1.1) | 12.8 | (1.2) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 12.8 | (1.1) | 13.1 | (1.2) | −0.36 | (0.22) | [−0.79 to 0.07] | −0.38 | (0.23) | [−0.83 to 0.07] |
| Social influence from organization regarding joint problem-solving (range 1–5) | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 3.4 | (0.7) | 3.7 | (0.7) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 3.6 | (0.8) | 3.8 | (0.7) | −0.12 | (0.15) | [−0.41 to 0.17] | −0.17 | (0.15) | [−0.46 to 0.12] |
| Social influence from employees regarding joint problem-solving (range 1–5) | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 3.7 | (0.7) | 3.7 | (0.6) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 3.7 | (0.8) | 3.8 | (0.6) | −0.04 | (0.13) | [−0.29 to 0.21] | −0.08 | (0.14) | [−0.35 to 0.19] |
| Intention to apply joint problem-solving (range 1–5) | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 4.2 | (0.6) | 4.1 | (0.4) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 4.1 | (0.5) | 4.1 | (0.4) | −0.01 | (0.09) | [−0.19 to 0.17] | −0.05 | (0.09) | [−0.23 to 0.13] |
| Self-efficacy to discuss work functioning problems or (risk of) sick leave (range 3–15) | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 10.5 | (2.1) | 10.5 | (1.8) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 11.3 | (2.1) | 10.9 | (1.9) | 0.39 | (0.35) | [−0.30 to 1.08] | 0.29 | (0.36) | [−0.42 to 1.00] |
| Percentage of employees who were sick-listed in last 6 months | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 0.25 | (0.20) | 0.33 | (0.26) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 0.19 | (0.19) | 0.29 | (0.29) | −0.04 | (0.04) | [−0.12 to 0.04] | −0.02 | (0.04) | [−0.10 to 0.06] |
| Average duration of sick-leave (calendar days) in last 6 months | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 2.8 | (3.1) | 4.2 | (4.4) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 4.4 | (6.9) | 3.6 | (4.9) | 1.00 | (1.40) | [−1.74 to 3.74] | 1.99 | (1.16) | [−0.28 to 4.26] |
| Number of employees with whom work functioning problems or risk of sick leave was discussed in last 6 months | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 1.0 | (1.6) | 1.2 | (1.5) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 2.0 | (3.9) | 0.8 | (1.2) | 1.28 | (0.60) | [0.10–2.46] | 1.26 | (0.62) | [0.04–2.48] |
| Number of employees with whom sick-leave was discussed in last 6 months | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 1.7 | (1.5) | 1.7 | (2.2) | ||||||
| 6 months’ follow-up | 1.8 | (2.6) | 1.3 | (1.3) | 0.49 | (0.44) | [−0.37 to 1.35] | 0.50 | (0.45) | [−0.38 to 1.38] |
Bold values are statistically significant as 95 % confidence interval does not encompass zero
aConfounders: years of supervisory experience, number of employees at risk of sick leave at baseline, and supervisor’s sex