Project description:BackgroundLong-term sick leave is a serious concern in developed countries and the cost of sickness absence and disability benefits cause major challenges for both the individual and society as a whole. Despite an increasing body of research reported by existing systematic reviews, there is uncertainty regarding the effect on return to work of workrelated interventions for workers with different diagnoses. The objective of this systematic review was to assess and summarize available research about the effects of work-related interventions for people on long-term sick leave and those at risk of long-term sick leave.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in accordance with international guidelines. Campbell Collaboration (Area: Social Welfare), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts were systematically searched in March 2021. Two authors independently screened the studies. We conducted risk of bias assessments and meta-analyses of the available evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The remaining comparisons were synthesized narratively. The certainty of evidence for each outcome was assessed.ResultsWe included 20 RCTs comprising 5753 participants at baseline from 4 different countries. The studies had generally low risk of bias. Our certainty in the effect estimates ranged from very low to moderate. Eight different interventions were identified. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between multidisciplinary rehabilitation (MR) and usual care (US) (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.01; Confidence Interval [CI] 95% 0.70-1.48 at 12 months follow-up) and between MR and other active intervention (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.04; Confidence Interval [CI] 95% 0.86-1.25 at 12 months follow-up). Remaining intervention groups revealed marginal, or no effect compared to the control group. The results for the secondary outcomes (self-efficacy, symptom reduction, function, cost-effectiveness) showed varied and small effects in the intervention groups.ConclusionOverall, the present data showed no conclusive evidence of which work-related intervention is most effective for return to work. However, a handful of potential interventions exist, that may contribute to a foundation for future research. Our findings support the need for adequately powered and methodologically strong studies.
Project description:Posttraumatic stress disorder acquired at work can be debilitating both for workers and their employers. The disorder can result in increased sick leave, reduced productivity, and even unemployment. Furthermore, workers are especially unlikely to return to their previous place of employment after a traumatic incident at work because of the traumatic memories and symptoms of avoidance that typically accompany the disorder. Therefore, intervening in work-related PTSD becomes especially important in order to get workers back to the workplace.A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Science. The articles were independently screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by a quality assessment of all included articles.The systematic search identified seven articles for inclusion in the review. These consisted of six research articles and one systematic review. The review focused specifically on interventions using real exposure techniques for anxiety disorders in the workplace. In the research articles addressed in the current review, study populations included police officers, public transportation workers, and employees injured at work. The studies examined the effectiveness of EMDR, cognitive-behavioural techniques, and an integrative therapy approach called brief eclectic psychotherapy. Interestingly, 2 of the 6 research articles addressed add-on treatments for workplace PTSD, which were designed to treat workers with PTSD who failed to respond to traditional evidence-based psychotherapy.Results of the current review suggest that work-related interventions show promise as effective strategies for promoting return to work in employees who acquired PTSD in the workplace. Further research is needed in this area to determine how different occupational groups with specific types of traumatic exposure might respond differently to work-tailored treatments.
Project description:BackgroundA considerable proportion of work absence is attributed to back pain, however prospective studies in working populations with back pain are variable in setting and design, and a quantitative summary of current evidence is lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate the extent to which differences in setting, country, sampling procedures and methods for data collection are responsible for variation in estimates of work absence and return to work.MethodsSystematic searches of seven bibliographic databases. Inclusion criteria were: adults in paid employment, with back pain, work absence or return to work during follow-up had been reported. Random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis was carried out to provide summary estimates of work absence and return to work rates.Results45 studies were identified for inclusion in the review; 34 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimate for the occurrence of work absence in workers with back pain was 15.5% (95% CI 9.8% to 23.6%, n=17 studies, I(2) 98.1%) in studies with follow-up periods of ≤6 months. The pooled estimate for the proportion of people with back pain returning to work was 68.2% (95% CI 54.8% to 79.1%, n=13, I(2) 99.2%), 85.6% (95% CI 78.2% to 90.7%, n=13, I(2) 98.7%) and 93.3% (95% CI 84.0% to 94.7%, n=10, I(2) 99%), at 1 month, 1-6 months and ≥6 months, respectively. Differences in setting, risk of participation bias and method of assessing work absence explained some of the heterogeneity.ConclusionsPooled estimates suggest high return to work rates, with wide variation in estimates of return to work only partly explained by a priori defined study-level variables. The estimated 32% not back at work at 1 month are at a crucial point for intervention to prevent long term work absence.
Project description:Cancer patients are more at risk of being unemployed or having difficulties to return to work (RTW) compared to individuals without health concerns, and is thus a major public health issue. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and describe the interventions developed specifically to help cancer patients to RTW after treatment. Two researchers independently screened the articles for inclusion and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklists were used to assess the methodology of the included studies. Ten manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The type of studies were three quasi-experimental studies, three longitudinal studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a qualitative study. RTW interventions were conducted in or outside the hospital (n = 6 and 3 respectively), or both (n = 1). Improvements in RTW were only observed in quasi-experimental studies. No improvement in RTW was noted in RCTs, nor in other measures (e.g., quality of life, fatigue). Lack of statistically significant improvement does not necessarily reflect reality, but may be attributed to non-adapted research methods. This systematic review underscores the need for researches in the RTW field to reach a consensus on RTW criteria and their assessment. Recommendations to this effect are suggested.
Project description:Background and study aims
An increasing number of cancer survivors are of working age. Cancer is also a known cause of people withdrawing early from the labour market and also a prolonged absence from work due to sickness. Cancer survivors in lower socioeconomic groups (for example, people who do lower skilled jobs) and/or suffer from another disease (co-morbidity) are at particular risk of recurrent sickness absence, unemployment or permanent withdrawal from the labour market. Not being able to work to the same ability and unfavourable work conditions can also mean that cancer survivors of lower socioeconomic status and/or co-morbidity find returning to work more difficult. Support from supervisors and adjustments that make it possible for the cancer survivor to do their job more easily (work accommodations) may be important in preventing sickness relapses due to the job environment affecting their state of health. It is not known how important occupational rehabilitation during cancer treatment might be in helping cancer survivors return to work and, in particular, how it may help those patients of lower socioeconomic status and/or co-morbidity. This study aims to increase the likelihood of cancer survivors returning to work through a programme (intervention) of individual support offered by a job consultant connected to the oncology ward at Aarhus University Hospital.
Who can participate?
Cancer patients between 18 and 60 years of age who are living in Randers or Silkeborg municipalities in Denmark diagnosed with breast, gastro-intestinal, head and neck, testis, ovarian or cervix cancer and being treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. They must be permanently or temporary employed (with at least 6 months left of their contract) and possibly on sick leave.
What does the study involve?
Patients that meet the criteria for participating in the trial and living in either Randers or Silkeborg municipalities in Denmark are placed in the intervention group. Patients that meet the criteria but live outside of these municipalities are placed in the control group. Those in the intervention group take part in an early, tailored return to work management programme that supports cancer patients as they are undergoing treatment. Those in the control group are offered the standard sick leave management programme. The return to work rates among cancer survivors in the intervention group is then compared to those in the control group. The effect of the intervention on cancer survivors of lower socioeconomic status and/or co-morbidity is also assessed.
Project description:Background and objectivesReturn to work (RTW) or work resumption after a work absence due to psychosocial or medical reasons benefits the well-being of a person, including transgender people, and is nowadays a major research domain. The objective is to examine, through an occupational lens, the literature reporting objective RTW outcomes and experiences in transgender people to (a) synthesize what is known about return to work (full-time, part-time, or self-employed) and (b) describe which gaps persist.Methods & sampleSeveral databases and the gray literature were explored systematically. Studies between November 1, 2006 and March 1, 2021 revealing RTW quantitative and qualitative data of adult transgender people were eligible. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019128395) on April 30, 2019.ResultsAmong the 14,592 articles initially identified, 97 fulfilled the inclusion criteria which resulted in 20 being analyzed. Objective RTW outcomes, such as number of RTW attempts, time to RTW or number of sick days, were lacking; thus, other relevant work outcomes were reported. Compared to the general population, lower employment rates and more economic distress were observed, with trans women in particular saying that their work situation had deteriorated. Research on positive RTW experiences was highlighted by the importance of disclosure, the support from especially managers and coworkers who acted as mediators, personal coping, and a transition plan along with work accommodations. Negative work experiences, such as demotion, lay-offs, and discrimination were often prominent together with a lack of knowledge of trans issues among all stakeholders, including occupational health professionals.Conclusion & recommendationsFew studies have explored employment characteristics and experiences of transgender people (TP). RTW is a dynamic process along with transition in itself, which should be tailored through supportive policies, education, a transition plan and work accommodations with the help of external experts. Future studies should include more occupational information and report RTW outcomes to enhance our knowledge about the guidance of TP and to make way for interventional studies.
Project description:Purpose There is limited knowledge about motivational interviewing (MI) for people on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders. Hence, our objective was to investigate what research on MI as a method to facilitate return to work for individuals who are on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders exists, and what are the results of the research? Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, Epistemonikos, SveMed + and DARE & HTA (covering 1983 to August 2019). We also searched the MINT bulletin and relevant web pages. Eligibility criteria: empirical studies investigating MI and return to work for people with musculoskeletal disorders. Two authors independently screened the records, critically appraised the studies and charted the data using a data extraction form. Results The searches identified 1264 records of which two studies were included. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) found no effect of MI on return to work for disability pensioner with back pain (n = 89, high risk of bias), while a cluster RCT found that MI increased return to work for claimants with chronic musculoskeletal disorders (n = 728, low risk of bias). Conclusions This mapping review identified a huge gap in research on MI to increase return to work for individuals with musculoskeletal disorders. Registration Current Research Information System in Norway, project id: 635823 ( https://app.cristin.no/projects/show.jsf?id=635823 ).
Project description:Purpose To explore the usefulness of the Readiness for return to work scale in individuals participating in occupational rehabilitation, by assessing the association between the scale and return to work (RTW), and comparing the scale to a question assessing individuals' expectations about length of sick leave. Method Prospective cohort study with 9 months follow-up. Participants took part in one of two randomized clinical trials. Associations between the Readiness for RTW scale and RTW was analyzed using linear and logistic regression, with adjustment for age, gender and education. The Readiness for RTW scale was compared to a self-reported question assessing participants' expectations about length of sick leave using adjusted/pseudo R2. Results For participants not working (n = 96), high scores on two dimensions (Prepared for action-self-evaluative and Prepared for action-behavioral) were associated with a higher probability of sustainable RTW and more working days. For those working (n = 121), high scores on the Uncertain maintenance dimension was associated with a lower probability of sustainable RTW and less working days. Generally, models including the Readiness for RTW dimensions were not as good at explaining work outcomes as models including a single expectation question. Stage allocation, allocating participants to the dimension with the highest score, was problematic due to several tied scores between (not necessarily adjacent) dimensions. Conclusions Three of the Readiness for RTW dimensions were associated with RTW. However, several weaknesses with the Readiness for RTW scale were established and we particularly do not recommend the stage allocation approach for clinical use in its current form.