Marie H T Martin1,2, Maj Britt D Nielsen1, Jacob Pedersen1, Reiner Rugulies1,2,3. 1. a National Research Centre for the Working Environment , Copenhagen , Denmark . 2. b Department of Psychology , University of Copenhagen , Denmark , and. 3. c Department of Public Health , University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen , Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mental health problems (MHPs) are increasingly common as reasons for long-term sickness absence. However, the knowledge of how to promote a stable return to work (RTW) after sickness absence due to MHPs is limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a multidisciplinary, coordinated and tailored RTW-intervention in terms of stability of RTW, cumulative sickness absence and labour market statusafter 2 years among sickness absence compensation beneficiaries with MHPs. METHODS: In a quasi-randomised, controlled trial, we followed recipients of the intervention (n = 88) and of conventional case management (n = 80) for 2 years to compare their risk of recurrent sickness absence and unemployment after RTW, their cumulative sickness absence and their labour market status after 2 years. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant intervention effect in terms of the risk of recurrent sickness absence or unemployment. Intervention recipients had more cumulated sickness absence in year one (mean difference = 58 days; p < 0.01) and year two (mean difference = 36 days; p = 0.03), and fewer were self-supported at the end of follow-up (52% versus 69%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The intervention showed no benefits in terms of improved stability of RTW, reduced sickness absence or improved labour market status after 2 years when compared to conventional case management. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Evidence for effective return-to-work (RTW) interventions for people with mental health problems is limited, as most research to date has been done in the context of musculoskeletal disorders. A complex, multidisciplinary intervention, detached from the workplace, does not appear to improve the stability of RTW and may actually lead to more sickness absence days and less self-support when compared to conventional case management of sickness absence beneficiaries in Denmark. A stronger focus on cooperation with social insurance officers and employers may produce better results.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Mental health problems (MHPs) are increasingly common as reasons for long-term sickness absence. However, the knowledge of how to promote a stable return to work (RTW) after sickness absence due to MHPs is limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a multidisciplinary, coordinated and tailored RTW-intervention in terms of stability of RTW, cumulative sickness absence and labour market status after 2 years among sickness absence compensation beneficiaries with MHPs. METHODS: In a quasi-randomised, controlled trial, we followed recipients of the intervention (n = 88) and of conventional case management (n = 80) for 2 years to compare their risk of recurrent sickness absence and unemployment after RTW, their cumulative sickness absence and their labour market status after 2 years. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant intervention effect in terms of the risk of recurrent sickness absence or unemployment. Intervention recipients had more cumulated sickness absence in year one (mean difference = 58 days; p < 0.01) and year two (mean difference = 36 days; p = 0.03), and fewer were self-supported at the end of follow-up (52% versus 69%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The intervention showed no benefits in terms of improved stability of RTW, reduced sickness absence or improved labour market status after 2 years when compared to conventional case management. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Evidence for effective return-to-work (RTW) interventions for people with mental health problems is limited, as most research to date has been done in the context of musculoskeletal disorders. A complex, multidisciplinary intervention, detached from the workplace, does not appear to improve the stability of RTW and may actually lead to more sickness absence days and less self-support when compared to conventional case management of sickness absence beneficiaries in Denmark. A stronger focus on cooperation with social insurance officers and employers may produce better results.
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: E MacEachen; E McDonald; E Neiterman; E McKnight; C Malachowski; M Crouch; S Varatharajan; N Dali; E Giau Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2020-09