OBJECTIVE: To test a new program's effectiveness in reducing depression's work burden. METHODS: A brief telephonic program to improve work functioning was tested in an early-stage randomized controlled trial involving 79 Maine State Government employees who were screened in for depression and at-work limitations (treatment group = 59; usual care group = 27). Group differences in baseline to follow-up change scores on the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), WLQ Absence Module, and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression severity scale were tested with analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Although there were no baseline group differences (P ≥ 0.05), by follow-up, the treatment group had significantly better scores on every outcome and differences in the longitudinal changes were all statistically significant (P = 0.0.27 to 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The new program was superior to usual care. The estimated productivity cost savings is $6041.70 per participant annually.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test a new program's effectiveness in reducing depression's work burden. METHODS: A brief telephonic program to improve work functioning was tested in an early-stage randomized controlled trial involving 79 Maine State Government employees who were screened in for depression and at-work limitations (treatment group = 59; usual care group = 27). Group differences in baseline to follow-up change scores on the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), WLQ Absence Module, and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression severity scale were tested with analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Although there were no baseline group differences (P ≥ 0.05), by follow-up, the treatment group had significantly better scores on every outcome and differences in the longitudinal changes were all statistically significant (P = 0.0.27 to 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The new program was superior to usual care. The estimated productivity cost savings is $6041.70 per participant annually.
Authors: Anthony F Lehman; Richard Goldberg; Lisa B Dixon; Scot McNary; Leticia Postrado; Ann Hackman; Karen McDonnell Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2002-02
Authors: Michael Schoenbaum; Jürgen Unützer; Daniel McCaffrey; Naihua Duan; Cathy Sherbourne; Kenneth B Wells Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jürgen Unützer; Wayne Katon; Christopher M Callahan; John W Williams; Enid Hunkeler; Linda Harpole; Marc Hoffing; Richard D Della Penna; Polly Hitchcock Noël; Elizabeth H B Lin; Patricia A Areán; Mark T Hegel; Lingqi Tang; Thomas R Belin; Sabine Oishi; Christopher Langston Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jong-Min Woo; Won Kim; Tae-Yeon Hwang; Kevin D Frick; Byong Hwi Choi; Yong-Jin Seo; Eun-Ho Kang; Se Joo Kim; Byong-Joo Ham; Jun-Seok Lee; Yu Lee Park Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Michael P Pignone; Bradley N Gaynes; Jerry L Rushton; Catherine Mills Burchell; C Tracy Orleans; Cynthia D Mulrow; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Debra Lerner; David A Adler; William H Rogers; Hong Chang; Annabel Greenhill; Elina Cymerman; Francisca Azocar Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: David A Adler; Debra Lerner; Zachary L Visco; Annabel Greenhill; Hong Chang; Elina Cymerman; Francisca Azocar; William H Rogers Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Leif Boß; Dirk Lehr; Matthias Berking; Heleen Riper; Michael Patrick Schaub; David Daniel Ebert Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: William S Shaw; Elyssa Besen; Glenn Pransky; Cécile R L Boot; Michael K Nicholas; Robert K McLellan; Torill H Tveito Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anna S Geraedts; Annet M Kleiboer; Jos Twisk; Noortje M Wiezer; Willem van Mechelen; Pim Cuijpers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 5.428