Debra Lerner1, David A Adler1, William H Rogers1, Hong Chang1, Annabel Greenhill1, Elina Cymerman1, Francisca Azocar1. 1. Except for Dr. Cymerman and Dr. Azocar, the authors are with the Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston (e-mail: dlerner@tuftsmedicalcenter.org). Dr. Lerner and Dr. Adler are also with the Department of Psychiatry, Tufts Medical Center, where Dr. Cymerman is affiliated. Dr. Azocar is with Optum, San Francisco.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study tested an intervention aimed at improving work functioning among middle-aged and older adults with depression and work limitations. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial allocated an initial sample of 431 eligible employed adults (age ≥45) to a work-focused intervention (WFI) or usual care. Inclusion criteria were depression as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and at-work limitations indicated by a productivity loss score ≥5% on the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ). Study sites included 19 employers and five related organizations. Telephone-based counseling provided three integrated modalities: care coordination, cognitive-behavioral therapy strategy development, and work coaching and modification. Effectiveness (change in productivity loss scores from preintervention to four months postintervention) was tested with mixed models adjusted for confounders. Secondary outcomes included change in WLQ work performance scales, self-reported absences, and depression. RESULTS: Of 1,227 eligible employees (7% of screened), 431 (35%) enrolled and 380 completed the study (12% attrition). At-work productivity loss improved 44% in the WFI group versus 13% in usual care (difference in change, p<.001). WFI group scores on the four WLQ scales improved 44% to 47%, significantly better than in usual care (p<.001 for each scale). Absence days declined by 53% in the WFI group versus 13% in usual care (difference in change, p<.001). Mean PHQ-9 depression symptom severity scores declined 51% for WFI versus 26% for usual care (difference in change, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The WFI was more effective than usual care at four-month follow-up. Given increasing efforts to provide more patient-centered, value-based care, the WFI could be an important resource.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The study tested an intervention aimed at improving work functioning among middle-aged and older adults with depression and work limitations. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial allocated an initial sample of 431 eligible employed adults (age ≥45) to a work-focused intervention (WFI) or usual care. Inclusion criteria were depression as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and at-work limitations indicated by a productivity loss score ≥5% on the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ). Study sites included 19 employers and five related organizations. Telephone-based counseling provided three integrated modalities: care coordination, cognitive-behavioral therapy strategy development, and work coaching and modification. Effectiveness (change in productivity loss scores from preintervention to four months postintervention) was tested with mixed models adjusted for confounders. Secondary outcomes included change in WLQ work performance scales, self-reported absences, and depression. RESULTS: Of 1,227 eligible employees (7% of screened), 431 (35%) enrolled and 380 completed the study (12% attrition). At-work productivity loss improved 44% in the WFI group versus 13% in usual care (difference in change, p<.001). WFI group scores on the four WLQ scales improved 44% to 47%, significantly better than in usual care (p<.001 for each scale). Absence days declined by 53% in the WFI group versus 13% in usual care (difference in change, p<.001). Mean PHQ-9 depression symptom severity scores declined 51% for WFI versus 26% for usual care (difference in change, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The WFI was more effective than usual care at four-month follow-up. Given increasing efforts to provide more patient-centered, value-based care, the WFI could be an important resource.
Authors: Debra Lerner; David Adler; Richard C Hermann; Hong Chang; Evette J Ludman; Annabel Greenhill; Katherine Perch; William C McPeck; William H Rogers Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Nicolas Despiégel; Natalya Danchenko; Clément François; Benedikte Lensberg; Michael F Drummond Journal: Value Health Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Madhukar H Trivedi; David W Morris; Stephen R Wisniewski; Ira Lesser; Andrew A Nierenberg; Ella Daly; Benji T Kurian; Bradley N Gaynes; G K Balasubramani; A John Rush Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 18.112
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: 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: Chris Calitz; Charlotte Pratt; Nicolaas P Pronk; Janet E Fulton; Kimberly Jinnett; Anne N Thorndike; Ebyan Addou; Ross Arena; Alison G M Brown; Chia-Chia Chang; Lisa Latts; Debra Lerner; Michiel Majors; Michelle Mancuso; Drew Mills; Eduardo Sanchez; David Goff Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-08-28 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Janika Thielecke; Claudia Buntrock; Ingrid Titzler; Lina Braun; Johanna Freund; Matthias Berking; Harald Baumeister; David D Ebert Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 4.157