Effectiveness of a Coordinated and Tailored Return-to-Work Intervention for Sickness Absence Beneficiaries with Mental Health Problems

Martin, Marie H. T.; Nielsen, Maj Britt Dahl; Madsen, Ida E. H.; Petersen, Signe M. A.; Lange, Theis; Rugulies, Reiner

doi:10.1007/s10926-013-9421-5

Cited by 47 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To illustrate, in Canada and the Netherlands, beneficial effects of a participatory RTW program on workrelated outcomes were found for sick-listed employees with low back pain (42)(43)(44) and on the duration until sustainable RTW of workers without an employment contract and sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders (24). Whereas, in line with our findings, no superior (overall) intervention effect on the duration until sustainable RTW was found for Dutch sick-listed employees with a CMD (12), and an adverse effect of a very similar program was found for Danish sickness absence beneficiaries with mental health problems (7). Furthermore, although we selected participants with positive RTW intentions and our analyses were adjusted for possible changes in this intention, findings were inconsistent with the beneficial intervention effect found for a similar subgroup of employees sick-listed due to a CMD with such positive intention at baseline (12).…”

Section: Lammerts Et Alsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Common mental health problems are mild-to-moderate depressive, anxiety, and stress-related complaints, which have also been described as common mental disorders (CMD) (1). The large impact of CMD on society has led to a growing attention in recent literature for the development and evaluation of interventions that aim to promote returnto-work (RTW) of workers on sick leave due to a CMD (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14). Many of these studies focused on sick-listed employees, ie, workers with an employment contract.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of a return-to-work program for workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to common mental disorders

Lammerts¹,

Schaafsma²,

Bonefaas-Groenewoud³

et al. 2016

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Lammerts Et Alsupporting

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of a return-to-work program for workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to common mental disorders

Lammerts¹,

Schaafsma²,

Bonefaas-Groenewoud³

et al. 2016

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, two studies 51,52,54 did not report improvement in primary outcomes for the intervention groups. Martin et al 54 compared a co-ordinated and tailored return-to-work (CTRW) intervention to conventional case management, and reported that people in the conventional case management group returned to work more quickly than those in the treatment group. It may have been that, as the CTRW intervention was more in-depth, it took longer for employees to work through the different aspects of the intervention and return to work.…”

Section: Case Management Interventions That Were Based In Occupationamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been a of number collaborative care interventions carried out in OH settings, although none in the UK 30,31,[49][50][51][52][53][54] (Table 3). Interventions were generally targeted at specific conditions, including mental health problems such as depression 30,31,49 or musculoskeletal disorders.…”

Section: Case Management Interventions That Were Based In Occupationamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[51][52][53] One study focused on women after gynaecological surgery 50 and one study included people with a range of conditions. 54 Return to work was the primary outcome in most studies except for Vlasveld et al, which had clinical outcomes. 30 Content of the interventions varied but often incorporated a brief psychological intervention along with medical intervention and, in some cases, workplace intervention.…”

Section: Case Management Interventions That Were Based In Occupationamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaborative case management to aid return to work after long-term sickness absence: a pilot randomised controlled trial

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDespite high levels of employment among working-age adults in the UK, there is still a significant minority who are off work with ill health at any one time (so-called ‘sickness absence’). Long-term sickness absence results in significant costs to the individual, to the employer and to wider society.ObjectiveThe overall objective of the intervention was to improve employee well-being with a view to aiding return to work. To meet this aim, a collaborative case management intervention was adapted to the needs of UK employees who were entering or experiencing long-term sickness absence.DesignA pilot randomised controlled trial, using permuted block randomisation. Recruitment of patients with long-term conditions in settings such as primary care was achieved by screening of routine records, followed by mass mailing of invitations to participants. However, the proportion of patients responding to such invitations can be low, raising concerns about external validity. Recruitment in the Case Management to Enhance Occupational Support (CAMEOS) study used this method to test whether or not it would transfer to a population with long-term sickness absence in the context of occupational health (OH).ParticipantsEmployed people on long-term sickness absence (between 4 weeks and 12 months). The pilot was run with two different collaborators: a large organisation that provided OH services for a number of clients and a non-profit community-based organisation.InterventionCollaborative case management was delivered by specially trained case managers from the host organisations. Sessions were delivered by telephone and supported use of a self-help handbook. The comparator was usual care as provided by participants’ general practitioner (GP) or OH provider. This varied for participants according to the services available to them. Neither participants nor the research team were blind to randomisation.Main outcome measuresRecruitment rates, intervention delivery and acceptability to participants were the main outcomes. Well-being, as measured by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), and return-to-work rates were also recorded.ResultsIn total, over 1000 potentially eligible participants were identified across the sites and invited to participate. However, responses were received from just 61 of those invited (5.5%), of whom 16 (1.5%) were randomised to the trial (seven to treatment, nine to control). Detailed information on recruitment methods, intervention delivery, engagement and acceptability is presented. No harms were reported in either group.ConclusionsThis pilot study faced a number of barriers, particularly in terms of recruitment of employers to host the research. Our ability to respond to these challenges faced several barriers related to the OH context and the study set up. The intervention seemed feasible and acceptable when delivered, although caution is required because of the small number of randomised participants. However, employees’ lack of engagement in the research might imply that they did not see the intervention as valuable.Future workDeveloping effective and acceptable ways of reducing sickness absence remains a high priority. We discuss possible ways of overcoming these challenges in the future, including incentives for employers, alternative study designs and further modifications to recruitment methods.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN33560198.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 6, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave

Vilsteren

Oostrom

Vet

et al. 2015

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

228

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We found moderate-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce time to first RTW, high-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce cumulative duration of sickness absence, very low-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce time to lasting RTW, and moderate-quality evidence that workplace interventions increase recurrences of sick leave. Overall, the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work disability showed varying results. Workplace interventions reduce time to RTW and improve pain and functional status in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of a considerable effect of workplace interventions on time to RTW in workers with mental health problems or cancer.We found moderate-quality evidence to support workplace interventions for workers with musculoskeletal disorders. The quality of the evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for workers with mental health problems and cancer is low, and results do not show an effect of workplace interventions for these workers. Future research should expand the range of health conditions evaluated with high-quality studies.

show abstract

Effectiveness of a Coordinated and Tailored Return-to-Work Intervention for Sickness Absence Beneficiaries with Mental Health Problems

Cited by 47 publications

References 38 publications

Effectiveness of a return-to-work program for workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to common mental disorders

Effectiveness of a return-to-work program for workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to common mental disorders

Collaborative case management to aid return to work after long-term sickness absence: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About