Dataset Information

Metacognitive therapy and work-focused interventions for patients on sick leave due to anxiety and depression: study protocol for a randomised controlled wait-list trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety are major contributors to the global burden of disease. Affected individuals suffer reduced quality of life, impaired functioning and reduced capacity to work. Maintaining employment is an important determinant for health and wellbeing, and the economic impact of depression and anxiety is a significant societal expense. Treatments providing effective symptom reduction and helping patients return to work (RTW) would thus have substantial public health benefits. The present study will explore the effectiveness of metacognitive therapy (MCT) and work-focused interventions on reducing symptoms and increasing RTW rates for patients on sick leave due to depression and anxiety.

Methods

The study is a randomised controlled wait-list trial (RCT; N = 240). The intervention group will receive protocol-based MCT and work-focused interventions immediately after inclusion. The control condition is a wait-list control group. All patients will receive up to 12 weekly sessions. The study context is a Norwegian outpatient clinic part of a national programme aimed at reducing sick leave. The co-primary outcomes are change in RTW and symptoms of depression and anxiety at the end of treatment. In addition to self-report, sick leave will also be collected from national registries from 2 years prior to intervention to 4 years after intervention. Symptoms of scores will be collected by self-report at pre- and post-treatment and at 6 and 12 months follow-up after treatment. A cost-effectiveness analysis will use total cost and quality-adjusted life-years as the secondary outcomes.

Discussion

There is broad consensus on the importance of identifying treatment that effectively reduces depression and anxiety symptoms and aids RTW. This study is an important contribution to the field as it is the first RCT on MCT and work-focused interventions for patients on sick leave due to anxiety and depression.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03301922 . Registered on October 4, 2017.

SUBMITTER: Sandin K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8626756 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesSick leave due to anxiety and depression is a heterogeneous process constituting a pressing public health issue. This longitudinal study aimed to identify sick leave trajectories among patients before, during and after work-focused treatment, in all 29.5 months. We then aimed to determine the background and clinical characteristics of these trajectory groups.MethodsBackground and clinical data were collected by patient self-report (N=619) in an observational study in a specialised mental healthcare clinic. Sick leave was recorded from national registry data. A latent growth mixture model identified trajectories. Multinomial logistic regression determined differences in background characteristics while a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) identified clinical differences.ResultsWe identified three trajectories: The 'Resilient' group (47.7%) had low sick leave throughout the period. The two other groups ('Recovery', 31.8% and 'High risk', 20.5%) had similar pretreatment trajectories: lower sick leave one year prior which increased to high sick leave at the start of treatment. After treatment, the 'Recovery' group made an almost full return to work while the 'High risk' group remained at high sick leave. The two groups with high sick leave had more women and higher age compared with the 'Resilient' group. All groups had similar clinical scores at the start of treatment, but the 'High risk' groups had residual depressive symptoms at the end of treatment. Effect sizes for anxiety and depression were moderate or large for all groups, (Cohen's d=0.74-1.81), and 87.2% of the total sample were fully working one year after treatment.ConclusionWe found three subgroups with distinctly different trajectories. Female gender and higher age were associated with high sick leave at the start of treatment, while residual depressive symptoms at the end of treatment predicted continued sick leave. The study points to the possibility of improving patient outcomes in the future by stratifying and tailoring treatment to patient characteristics.

Project description:BackgroundSick leave caused by common mental health disorders (CMD) is becoming more prevalent. For most people, work is essential for good mental and physical health. It is necessary to provide treatments that facilitate return to work (RTW) and a reduction of symptoms. A qualitative study can contribute to an understanding of what makes an intervention successful. The aim of this study was to investigate how individuals who are on sick leave because of CMD perceive and handle their symptoms and their work, after completing metacognitive therapy and work-focused interventions.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 participants after they had completed therapy. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.ResultsThrough both therapy and the process of RTW, the participants had gained increased awareness and understanding of their mental health problems and the relationship between those problems and work. Together with the sense that they were in charge of their own process of RTW, this helped to improve their self-confidence. An important part of the process was the change to new strategies and the rejection of older maladaptive ones, in relation to both mental health and work. Being open about their mental illness in the workplace could lead to support but also to the opposite, and therefore not an option for everyone. After treatment, most had returned to work and gained a more positive outlook on the future, but some had less confidence in their ability to deal with future symptoms and workplace issues.ConclusionsAchieving improved self-confidence and adopting new strategies, which enabled them to change how they related to their mental problems and how they addressed their problems at work, seemed to have increased their self-efficacy. Active involvement in therapy and at work was also important, both for the process and as a way of increasing self-efficacy. This gave them renewed belief in themselves and in their ability to handle their work at present and in the future. Despite this being a manualized treatment, the participants' experience was that it was adapted to each individual, something they regarded as important.

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.