Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Goal and framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. How was the study implemented? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. How did the organizations introduce the new concept? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1. Selection and responsibilities of work ability coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. Development targets in organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5 How was the service process implemented in the different operating environments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.1. Service process in the TE Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2. Service process in the workplace’s HR management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.3. Service process in occupational health care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.4. Service process in an education institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6. How did the client perceive the collaboration with the work ability coordinator? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7. What were the barriers or facilitators to work participation of persons with partial work ability? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8. What kind of new operating practices did the organizations develop? . . . . . . 30 8.1. Collaborative development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8.2. Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.3. Competence development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8.4. Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.5. Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 9. What were the benefits of the new concept? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 9.1. How did the organization and the person with partial work ability benefit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 9.2. How did the work ability coordinator benefit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 10. What kind of economic effects did the concept have? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 11. Two work trial stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 11.1. Matias’ story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 11.2. The scenario analysis of Matias’ career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 11.3. Anna’s story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 11.4. Needs for further development in the work trial process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 12. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 13. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 14. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
[1]
Karen Bryan,et al.
Work after stroke: focusing on barriers and enablers
,
2005
.
[2]
Ronna C. Turner,et al.
Development of an Instrument to Measure Consumer Satisfaction in Vocational Rehabilitation
,
2004
.
[3]
Inka Koskela,et al.
Workplace Accommodation Among Persons with Disabilities: A Systematic Review of Its Effectiveness and Barriers or Facilitators
,
2015,
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.
[4]
Lynne Turner-Stokes,et al.
Effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation intervention on the return to work and employment of persons with multiple sclerosis.
,
2009,
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
[5]
Pertti Kekki.
Kriittinen tekijä : kirjoituksia yleislääkäritoimesta, sen merkityksestä ja tehokkuuden edellytyksistä
,
2015
.
[6]
Jyri Liukko,et al.
Toimijoiden yhteistyö työkykyongelmien hallinnassa: ammattilaisten haastatteluihin perustuva tutkimus
,
2015
.
[7]
Raija Pirttimaa.
Tuetun työllistymisen alkuvaiheet ja kehittyminen Suomessa
,
2003
.
[8]
Tatiana I. Solovieva,et al.
Workplace Personal Assistance Services for People with Disabilities: Making Productive Employment Possible
,
2010
.
[9]
Mirko Noordegraaf,et al.
Hybrid professionalism and beyond: (New) Forms of public professionalism in changing organizational and societal contexts
,
2015
.
[10]
Julie Phillips,et al.
Return to work after traumatic brain injury: Cohort comparison and economic evaluation
,
2013,
Brain injury.
[11]
Pirjo Juvonen-Posti,et al.
Työkykyjohtaminen - johdettua yhdessä tekemistä : Tapaustutkimus käytännön johtamismenettelyistä ja taloudellisesta vaikuttavuudesta kunnallisessa liikelaitoksessa
,
2014
.
[12]
Wei Li,et al.
Reduction of job loss in persons with rheumatic diseases receiving vocational rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial.
,
2003,
Arthritis and rheumatism.
[13]
Kristiina Härkäpää,et al.
Työhönvalmennus ja sen kehittämistarpeet
,
2013
.
[14]
Naomi Schreuer,et al.
Policy in Action: Stories on the Workplace Accommodation Process
,
2011
.
[15]
James W. Peltier,et al.
Participant Satisfaction with the Vocational Rehabilitation Process
,
2006,
Health marketing quarterly.
[16]
J. Kausto,et al.
Effect of partial sick leave on work participation
,
2014
.
[17]
Caroline Waks,et al.
Coping with contradictions: hybrid professionals managing institutional complexity
,
2015
.
[18]
L. Pierce,et al.
Disability and Rehabilitation are Only Words.
,
2018,
Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses.