Population: Adults on full or partly sick leave Countries: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands Intervention: Work-related interventions Comparison: Usual care or other active intervention | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome, follow-up time | Relative effect (95% KI) | Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of evidence (GRADE) | ||
Assumed risk with control | Assumed risk with intervention | Absolute difference (intervention minus control) | ||||
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation vs. UC | ||||||
Return to work (12 mo) | RR = 1.01 (0.70–1.48) | 72 per 100 | 73 per 100 (50 to 107) | 1 more person | 321 participants (3 RCTs) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowa,b,c |
Return to work (12 mo) | - | - | - | One study found no difference between the groups. One study found that the intervention group had shorter time on sick leave than the control group. | 1891 participants (2 RCTs) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowa,b,c |
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation vs. active treatment | ||||||
Return to work (12 mo) | RR = 1.04 (0.86–1.25) | 59 per 100 | 61 per 100 (51 to 74) | Three more persons (14 less to 25 more) | 851 participants (4 RCTs) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowa,b |
Return to work (24 mo) | RR = 0.94 (0.84–1.05) | 63 per 100 | 59 per 100 | Four less persons (16 less to 5 more) | 635 participants (2 RCTs) | ⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderated |
W-CBT vs. UC | ||||||
Return to work | - | - | - | Two studies showed faster RTW in the intervention group compared to UC at 4 and 6 mo. One study showed no difference between the groups at 18 mo. | 311 participants (3 RCTs) | ⨁⨁◯◯ Lowa |
W-CBT vs. active intervention | ||||||
Return to work (12 mo) | 27 (− 8.7, 62.8) days less sick leave than control group 1, 18 (− 15.8, 52.1) days less sick leave than control group 2 | - | - | No difference between the groups in number of sick days | 211 participants (1 RCTs) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very low e,f |
Problem-solving approach vs. UC | ||||||
Return to work (3 mo) | - | 39 per 100 | 37 per 100 | No difference between the groups in days on sick leave | 194 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowg,h |
Return to work (6 mo) | - | 62 per 100 | 58 per 100 | No difference between the groups in days on sick leave | 194 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowg,h |
Return to work (18 mo) | HR = 1.04 (0.76–1.42) | 79 per 100 | 85 per 100 | No difference between the groups in days on sick leave | 194 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowg,h |
Additional dialogue meeting vs. active treatment | ||||||
Return to work | MD = 48 (− 2.9, 100.8) | No difference between the groups in days until full RTW | 60 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowf,i | ||
Days to first RTW | MD = − 2.02 (− 28.2, 24.2) | No difference between the groups in days until the first RTW | 60 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowf,i | ||
Adjuvant occupational therapy vs. UC | ||||||
Full return to work (18 mo) | HR = 0.93 (0.57–1.53) | - | - | No difference between the groups | 117 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowa,f |
Partly return to work (18 mo) | HR = 0.72 (0.44–1.11) | - | - | No difference between the groups | 117 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowa,f |
Stress treatment program vs. UC or waiting list | ||||||
Return to work (3 mo) | OR = 8.1 (3.2–20.7) | - | - | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowf,i | ||
MR with additional workplace meeting vs. MR | ||||||
Return to work (12 mo) | HR = 0.74 (0.48–1.16) | 52 per 100 | 42 per 100 | Sustainable RTW 42% in the intervention group vs. 52% in the control group | 175 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowd,f |
E-health module with collaborative occupational health care vs. UC | ||||||
Full return to work (12 mo) | - | Median days 178 (IQR 72.0–243.3) | Median days 131 (IQR 68.5–198) | Median of 47 days faster full RTW in the intervention group compared to the control group | 131 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowd,f |
First return to work (12 mo) | HR = 1.39 (1.03–1.87) | 77 days until the first RTW | 50 days until the first RTW | 27 days faster first RTW in the intervention group compared to the control group | 131 participants (1 RCT) | ⨁◯◯◯ Very lowd,f |