Objectives To co-develop the Stay-At-Work (SAW) intervention, a person-centred, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral vocational rehabilitation (VR) programme for individuals on, or at risk of, sick leave due to chronic low back pain (CLBP) and to advance methodological understanding of how evidence, qualitative insights, stakeholder input and programme theory can be systematically integrated and operationalised into concrete intervention components. Design A three-stage intervention development study, guided by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions, involving evidence review and stakeholder consultation (previously reported); multistakeholder co-design; and prototyping in clinical settings. Setting The intervention was developed within a Danish public healthcare and welfare context, involving a secondary care spinal service, municipal employment services (n=3), municipal rehabilitation services (n=3) and general practice. Participants Stage 1: 17 individuals on long-term sick leave due to CLBP participated in interviews and focus groups. Stages 2 and 3: The co-design group included individuals living with CLBP (n=2); clinicians from a secondary care spine service (n=2) and municipal rehabilitation services (n=6); general practitioners (n=2); municipal employment service professionals (n=3) and local managers (n=3); and employer and employee representatives (n=2). Participants were purposively recruited based on their roles and experience in VR and return-to-work processes and contributed across different stages of intervention development. Results The SAW intervention consists of eight structured activities, developed through multistakeholder co-design and underpinned by a programme theory with four core mechanisms: (1) strengthened interprofessional and cross-sectoral understanding and collaboration; (2) stronger alignment around functional capacity and work ability; (3) addressing psychological vulnerability through systematic screening and support; and (4) enhanced coordination of care and rehabilitation efforts across services. Stakeholder input from the co-design group informed the intervention’s content and procedures, thereby improving alignment with local contexts and strengthening cross-sector collaboration. Some proposals were excluded due to inconsistency with clinical guidelines. Conclusion This study demonstrates how a structured, theory-informed co-development process can be used to integrate evidence, stakeholder input and programme theory into a coherent, cross-sectoral VR intervention. The approach enhanced transparency, supported alignment with real-world practice, and provides methodological insight to strengthen the reproducibility and transferability of complex interventions. Registration number : The Region of Southern Denmark’s Research Registry (journal no. 23/44927).
Frydenlund et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: