PURPOSE: Sickness absence and exclusion from the labour market due to mental health problems (MHPs) is a growing concern in many countries. Knowledge about effective return-to-work (RTW) intervention models is still limited, but a multidisciplinary, coordinated and tailored approach has shown promising results in the context of musculoskeletal disorders. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this approach as implemented among sickness absence beneficiaries with MHPs. METHODS: In a quasi-randomised, controlled trial, we assessed the intervention's effect in terms of time to RTW and labour market status after 1 year. We used two different analytical strategies to compare time to RTW between participants receiving the intervention (n = 88) and those receiving conventional case management (n = 80): (1) a traditional multivariable regression analysis controlling for measured confounding, and (2) an instrumental variable (IV) analysis controlling for unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: The two analytical approaches provided similar results in terms of a longer time to RTW among recipients of the intervention (HR = 0.50; 95 % CI 0.34-0.75), although the estimate provided by the IV-analysis was non-significant (HR = 0.70; 95 % CI 0.23-2.12). After 1 year, more recipients of the intervention than of conventional case management were receiving sickness absence benefits (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: The intervention delayed RTW compared to conventional case management, after accounting for measured confounding. The delayed RTW may be due to either implementation or program failure, or both. It may also reflect the complexity of retaining employees with mental health problems in the workplace.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Sickness absence and exclusion from the labour market due to mental health problems (MHPs) is a growing concern in many countries. Knowledge about effective return-to-work (RTW) intervention models is still limited, but a multidisciplinary, coordinated and tailored approach has shown promising results in the context of musculoskeletal disorders. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this approach as implemented among sickness absence beneficiaries with MHPs. METHODS: In a quasi-randomised, controlled trial, we assessed the intervention's effect in terms of time to RTW and labour market status after 1 year. We used two different analytical strategies to compare time to RTW between participants receiving the intervention (n = 88) and those receiving conventional case management (n = 80): (1) a traditional multivariable regression analysis controlling for measured confounding, and (2) an instrumental variable (IV) analysis controlling for unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: The two analytical approaches provided similar results in terms of a longer time to RTW among recipients of the intervention (HR = 0.50; 95 % CI 0.34-0.75), although the estimate provided by the IV-analysis was non-significant (HR = 0.70; 95 % CI 0.23-2.12). After 1 year, more recipients of the intervention than of conventional case management were receiving sickness absence benefits (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: The intervention delayed RTW compared to conventional case management, after accounting for measured confounding. The delayed RTW may be due to either implementation or program failure, or both. It may also reflect the complexity of retaining employees with mental health problems in the workplace.
Authors: Birgit Aust; Trine Helverskov; Maj Britt D Nielsen; Jakob Bue Bjorner; Reiner Rugulies; Karina Nielsen; Ole H Sørensen; Gry Grundtvig; Malene F Andersen; Jørgen V Hansen; Helle L Buchardt; Lisbeth Nielsen; Trine L Lund; Irene Andersen; Mogens H Andersen; Aksel S Clausen; Eskil Heinesen; Ole S Mortensen; John Ektor-Andersen; Palle Ørbæk; Glen Winzor; Ute Bültmann; Otto M Poulsen Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Marianna Virtanen; Ichiro Kawachi; Tuula Oksanen; Paula Salo; Katinka Tuisku; Laura Pulkki-Råback; Jaana Pentti; Marko Elovainio; Jussi Vahtera; Mika Kivimäki Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2011-03-19 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Bo Netterstrøm; Nicole Conrad; Per Bech; Per Fink; Ole Olsen; Reiner Rugulies; Stephen Stansfeld Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2008-06-27 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Nicole Vogel; Stefan Schandelmaier; Thomas Zumbrunn; Shanil Ebrahim; Wout El de Boer; Jason W Busse; Regina Kunz Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-30
Authors: Myrthe van Vilsteren; Sandra H van Oostrom; Henrica C W de Vet; Renée-Louise Franche; Cécile R L Boot; Johannes R Anema Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-10-05
Authors: Anne-Mette H Momsen; Christina Malmose Stapelfeldt; Claus Vinther Nielsen; Maj Britt D Nielsen; Birgit Aust; Reiner Rugulies; Chris Jensen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Karlijn M van Beurden; Evelien P M Brouwers; Margot C W Joosen; Michiel R de Boer; Jaap van Weeghel; Berend Terluin; Jac J L van der Klink Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2017-12
Authors: Eva Real; Lluís Jover; Ricard Verdaguer; Antoni Griera; Cinto Segalàs; Pino Alonso; Fernando Contreras; Antoni Arteman; José M Menchón Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 3.240