Dataset Information

Effects of a work stress intervention on healthcare use and treatment compared to treatment as usual: a randomised controlled trial in Swedish primary healthcare.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Work stress is an increasing burden in society. Identifying early symptoms of work stress in primary healthcare (PHC) could result in earlier and better-targeted care. The Work Stress Questionnaire (WSQ) was developed in PHC for this task. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of the WSQ, in combination with physicians' feedback, resulted in differences in healthcare visits and treatment compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in patients reporting high stress. Our hypothesis was that patients receiving the intervention would generate more visits to rehabilitation providers during follow-up compared to TAU. METHODS:A two-armed randomised controlled trial was conducted at seven primary healthcare centres (PHCCs) in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. One group received the WSQ intervention, and the controls received TAU. Employed, not sick-listed persons aged 18-64?years who sought care for mental or physical health complaints at the PHCCs participated. Register data on healthcare visits and treatments 12?months prior to inclusion and 12?months after were obtained and analysed with Fisher's exact test together with questionnaire data (WSQ and background features). RESULTS:A total of 271 participants were included in the study, 132 intervention and 139 controls. Visits to psychologists/psychotherapists were higher among intervention participants with high stress (20%, n?=?87) during follow-up compared to corresponding controls (7%, n?=?97) (p?

SUBMITTER: Sandheimer C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7339485 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of a work stress intervention on healthcare use and treatment compared to treatment as usual: a randomised controlled trial in Swedish primary healthcare.

Sandheimer Christine C Hedenrud Tove T Hensing Gunnel G Holmgren Kristina K

BMC family practice 20200706 1

<h4>Background</h4>Work stress is an increasing burden in society. Identifying early symptoms of work stress in primary healthcare (PHC) could result in earlier and better-targeted care. The Work Stress Questionnaire (WSQ) was developed in PHC for this task. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of the WSQ, in combination with physicians' feedback, resulted in differences in healthcare visits and treatment compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in patients reporting high stress. Our hypothesis was ...[more]

PMID: 32631243

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to compare the effectiveness of a brief physiotherapy intervention with "usual" physiotherapy for patients with neck pain. Secondly, to evaluate the effect of patients' preferences on outcome. DESIGN: Non-inferiority randomised controlled trial eliciting preferences independently of randomisation. SETTING: Physiotherapy departments in a community setting in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. PARTICIPANTS: 268 patients (mean age 48 years) with subacute and chronic neck pain, who were referred by their general practitioner and randomly assigned to a brief physiotherapy intervention (one to three sessions) using cognitive behaviour principles to encourage self management and return to normal function or usual physiotherapy, at the discretion of the physiotherapist concerned. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), a specific measure of functional disability resulting from neck pain. Also, the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire, a generic, health related, quality of life measure; and the Tampa scale for kinesophobia, a measure of fear and avoidance of movement. RESULTS: At 12 months, patients allocated to usual physiotherapy had a small but significant improvement in NPQ scores compared with patients in the brief intervention group (mean difference 1.99, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 3.52; P = 0.01). Although the result shows a significant inferiority of the intervention, the confidence interval shows that the effect could be in the non-inferiority range for the brief intervention (below 1.2 points of NPQ score). Patients who preferred the brief intervention and received this treatment had similar outcomes to patients receiving usual physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Usual physiotherapy may be only marginally better than a brief physiotherapy intervention for neck pain. Patients with a preference for the brief intervention may do at least as well with this approach. Additional training for the physiotherapists in cognitive behaviour techniques might improve this approach further.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) can relate to urinary storage or voiding. In men, the prevalence and severity of LUTS increases with age, with a significant impact on quality of life. The majority of men presenting with LUTS are managed by their general practitioner (GP) in the first instance, with conservative therapies recommended as the initial treatment. However, the provision of conservative therapies in primary care is variable and can be time and resource limited. GPs require practical resources to enhance patient engagement with such interventions. TRIUMPH aims to determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for LUTS versus usual care. METHODS/DESIGN:TRIUMPH is a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) being conducted in 30 National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. The TRIUMPH intervention comprises a standardised LUTS advice booklet developed for the trial with patient and healthcare professional (HCP) consultation. The booklet is delivered to patients by nurses/healthcare assistants following assessment of their urinary symptoms. Patients are directed to relevant sections of the booklet, providing the manualised element of the intervention. To encourage adherence, HCPs provide follow-up contacts over 12 weeks. Practices are randomised 1:1 to either deliver the TRIUMPH intervention or a usual care pathway. The patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months post consent is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes on LUTS, quality of life, and patient and HCP acceptability and experience of the intervention. Primary analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION:It is unclear whether conservative therapies for male LUTS are effectively delivered in primary care using current approaches. This can lead to men being inappropriately referred to secondary care or experiencing persistent symptoms. Primary care, therefore, holds the key to effective treatment for these men. The TRIUMPH intervention, through its standardised and manualised approach, has been developed to support GP practices in delivering effective conservative care. This pragmatic, cluster RCT should provide robust evidence in a primary-care setting to inform future guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISCRTN registry, ID: ISRCTN11669964 . Registered on 12 April 2018.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the health-economic costs and benefits of a guided eHealth intervention (E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational healthcare (ECO)) encouraging sick-listed employees to a faster return to work. DESIGN:A two-armed cluster randomised trial with occupational physicians (OPs) (n=62), clustered and randomised by region into an experimental and a control group, to conduct a health-economic investment appraisal. Online self-reported data were collected from employees at baseline, after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. SETTING:Occupational health care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Employees from small-sized and medium-sized companies (?18 years), sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with (symptoms of) common mental disorders visiting their OP. INTERVENTIONS:In the intervention group, employees (N=131) received an eHealth module aimed at changing cognitions regarding return to work, while OPs were supported by a decision aid for treatment and referral options. Employees in the control condition (N=89) received usual sickness guidance. OUTCOMES MEASURES:Net benefits and return on investment based on absenteeism, presenteeism, health care use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS:From the employer's perspective, the incremental net benefits were €3187 per employee over a single year, representing a return of investment of €11 per invested Euro, with a break-even point at 6 months. The economic case was also favourable from the employee's perspective, partly because of QALY health gains. The intervention was costing €234 per employee from a health service financier's perspective. The incremental net benefits from a social perspective were €4210. This amount dropped to €3559 in the sensitivity analysis trimming the 5% highest costs. CONCLUSIONS:The data suggest that the ECO intervention offers good value for money for virtually all stakeholders involved, because initial investments were more than recouped within a single year. The sometimes wide 95% CIs suggest that the costs and benefits are not always very precise estimates and real benefits could vary considerably. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NTR2108; Results.

Project description:BackgroundDysphagia or difficulty in swallowing affects quality of life for most patients with head and neck cancer. SIP SMART - [Swallowing Intervention Package: Self-Monitoring, Assessment, Rehabilitation Training] aims to improve post-treatment swallowing outcomes through a targeted and tailored pre-treatment intervention. This feasibility study assessed 1) recruitment and retention, 2) patient acceptability of randomisation and participation, 3) patient adherence, and 4) sought to identify a suitable primary outcome for a definitive trial, including sample size estimation.MethodsThis two-arm parallel group non-blinded randomised feasibility trial took place within a head and neck centre at a teaching hospital in London, UK. Patients newly diagnosed with stage III/IV head and neck cancer were recruited and underwent 6-month follow-up. Patients were randomised to SIP-SMART or usual care via an online web-based system. SIP SMART comprised two 45-min consultations including a baseline clinical and instrumental swallowing assessment, relevant educational information, targeted swallowing exercises, and specific behaviour change strategies to increase exercise adherence. Usual care comprised a single session including a baseline clinical assessment and generic information about the likely impact of treatment on swallowing.ResultsA total of 106 patients were identified at pre-screening, 70 were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-six patients did not meet eligibility criteria [0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.49]. Five of 44 [0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24] eligible patients were not approached by researchers during clinic. Seven [0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.33] of the 39 approached declined participation. Target recruitment (32 consented patients) was achieved within the timeframe. At 6-months 29/32 [0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97] patients remained in the trial. Acceptability of randomisation and participation in the intervention was favourable, and adherence to the exercises exceeded the pre-defined 35% minimum criterion. The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory swallow related quality of life measure was selected as the most suitable primary outcome for sample size estimation. No adverse effects arose from the intervention, or study participation.ConclusionsA definitive trial of the SIP SMART intervention compared to usual care is feasible and can be undertaken with patients with head and neck cancer treated within the NHS.Trial registrationISRCTN40215425, registered retrospectively.

Project description:BackgroundThe study is part of a randomised controlled trial with the overall aim to evaluate if use of the Work Stress Questionnaire (WSQ), combined with feedback at consultation, can be used by healthcare professionals in primary health care to prevent sickness absence. The specific aim of the present study was to investigate whether there were differences in pharmacy dispensing of prescription medications between the intervention group and the control group.MethodsThe study was a randomized controlled trial. Non-sick-listed employed women and men, aged 18 to 64?years, seeking care at primary health care centres (PHCCs) were eligible participants. The intervention included early identification of work-related stress by the WSQ, general practitioner (GP) training and GP feedback at consultation. Pharmacy dispensing data from the Swedish Prescription Drug Register for a period of 12?months following the intervention was used. Primary outcomes were the number of different medications used, type of medication and number of prescribing clinics. Data was analysed using Mann Whitney U tests and chi-square tests.ResultsThe study population included 271 individuals (132 in the intervention group and 139 in the control group). The number of different medications used per individual did not differ significantly between the control group (median 4.0) and the intervention group (median 4.0, p-value 0.076). The proportion of individuals who collected more than 10 different medications was higher in the control group than in the intervention group (15.8% versus 4.5%, p =?0.002). In addition, the proportion of individuals filling prescriptions issued from more than three different clinics was higher in the control group than in the intervention group (17.3% versus 6.8%, p =?0.007).ConclusionSystematic use of the WSQ combined with training of GPs and feedback at consultation may affect certain aspects of pharmacological treatment in primary health care patients. In this randomised control trial, analysis of pharmacy dispensing data show that patients in the intervention group had less polypharmacy and filled prescriptions issued from a smaller number of different clinics.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02480855. Registered 20 May 2015.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a secondary prevention programme with education on skin care and individual counselling versus treatment as usual in healthcare workers with hand eczema.DesignRandomised, observer blinded parallel group superiority clinical trial.SettingThree hospitals in Denmark.Participants255 healthcare workers with self reported hand eczema within the past year randomised centrally and stratified by profession, severity of eczema, and hospital. 123 were allocated to the intervention group and 132 to the control group.InterventionsEducation in skin care and individual counselling based on patch and prick testing and assessment of work and domestic related exposures. The control was treatment as usual.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was clinical severity of disease at five month follow-up measured by scores on the hand eczema severity index. The secondary outcomes were scores on the dermatology life quality index, self evaluated severity of hand eczema, skin protective behaviours, and knowledge of hand eczema from onset to follow-up.ResultsFollow-up data were available for 247 of 255 participants (97%). At follow-up, the mean score on the hand eczema severity index was significantly lower (improved) in the intervention group than control group: difference of means, unadjusted -3.56 (95% confidence interval -4.92 to -2.14); adjusted -3.47 (-4.80 to -2.14), both P<0.001 for difference. The mean score on the dermatology life quality index was also significantly lower (improved) in the intervention group at follow-up: difference of means: unadjusted -0.78, non-parametric test P=0.003; adjusted -0.92, -1.48 to -0.37). Self evaluated severity and skin protective behaviour by hand washings and wearing of protective gloves were also statistically significantly better in the intervention group, whereas this was not the case for knowledge of hand eczema.ConclusionA secondary prevention programme for hand eczema improved severity and quality of life and had a positive effect on self evaluated severity and skin protective behaviour by hand washings and wearing of protective gloves.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01012453.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-administration of medicines by patients whilst in hospital is being increasingly promoted despite little evidence to show the risks and benefits. Pain control after total knee replacement (TKR) is known to be poor. The aim of the study was to determine if patients operated on with a TKR who self-medicate their oral analgesics in the immediate post-operative period have better pain control than those who receive their pain control by nurse-led drug rounds (Treatment as Usual (TAU)).MethodsA prospective, parallel design, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing pain control in patient-directed self-management of pain (PaDSMaP) with nurse control of oral analgesia (TAU) after a TKR. Between July 2011 and March 2013, 144 self-medicating adults were recruited at a secondary care teaching hospital in the UK. TAU patients (n?=?71) were given medications by a nurse after their TKR. PaDSMaP patients (n?=?73) took oral medications for analgesia and co-morbidities after two 20 min training sessions reinforced with four booklets. Primary outcome was pain (100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) at 3 days following TKR surgery or at discharge (whichever came soonest). Seven patients did not undergo surgery for reasons unrelated to the study and were excluded from the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.ResultsITT analysis did not detect any significant differences between the two groups' pain scores. A per protocol (but underpowered) analysis of the 60% of patients able to self-medicate found reduced pain compared to the TAU group at day 3/discharge, (VAS -9.9 mm, 95% CI -18.7, -?1.1). One patient in the self-medicating group over-medicated but suffered no harm.ConclusionSelf-medicating patients did not have better (lower) pain scores compared to the nurse-managed patients following TKR. This cohort of patients were elderly with multiple co-morbidities and may not be the ideal target group for self-medication.Trial registrationISRCTN10868989 . Registered 22 March 2012, retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Effects of a work stress intervention on healthcare use and treatment compared to treatment as usual: a randomised controlled trial in Swedish primary healthcare.

Publications

Effects of a work stress intervention on healthcare use and treatment compared to treatment as usual: a randomised controlled trial in Swedish primary healthcare.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets