Determining what constitutes an effective psychosocial 'return to work' intervention: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Intervention
Psychosocial
Return to work
Systematic review
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 11 2021
25 11 2021
Historique:
received:
13
05
2021
accepted:
24
09
2021
entrez:
26
11
2021
pubmed:
27
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Work can offer a myriad of social and health benefits. Long-term sick leave can be detrimental to employers, individuals, families, and societies. The burden of long-term sick leave has motivated the development of return to work (RTW) interventions. This study sought to determine what constitutes an effective psychosocial RTW intervention, which included exploring whether the level of intervention intensity and intervention characteristics matter to RTW outcomes. A systematic review and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Studies were identified through six databases (Ovid Medline, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycInfo (Ovid), ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar) between 2011 and 3 September 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or reviews published in English were eligible for inclusion if they targeted adults who were on sick leave/unemployed trying to return to full-capacity employment, had at least one structured psychosocial RTW intervention, and assessed RTW. Study quality was assessed using checklists from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Database searching yielded 12,311 records. Eighteen RCTs (comprising 42 intervention/comparison groups), seven reviews (comprising 153 studies), and five grey literature documents were included. Included studies were of moderate-to-high quality. Research was primarily conducted in Europe and focused on psychological or musculoskeletal problems. RTW outcomes included RTW status, time until RTW, insurance claims, and sick days. Participating in a RTW program was superior to care-as-usual. RTW outcomes were similar between diverse interventions of low, moderate, and high intensity. Common foundational characteristics seen across effective RTW interventions included a focus on RTW, psychoeducation, and behavioural activation. Evidence suggests that a low intensity approach to RTW interventions may be an appropriate first option before investment in high intensity, and arguably more expensive interventions, as the latter appear to provide limited additional benefit. More high-quality RCTs, from diverse countries, are needed to provide stronger evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34823501
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11898-z
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-11898-z
pmc: PMC8620530
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2164Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Med. 2009 Dec 16;7:79
pubmed: 20015347
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017 Sep 1;43(5):436-446
pubmed: 28650513
J Rehabil Med. 2017 Jan 31;49(2):170-177
pubmed: 28101560
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2018 Aug;91(6):675-687
pubmed: 29808433
Health Psychol. 2007 Jan;26(1):1-9
pubmed: 17209691
Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 22;4:138
pubmed: 26494010
Pain. 1999 Mar;80(1-2):1-13
pubmed: 10204712
Psychol Med. 2008 May;38(5):611-23
pubmed: 17903337
BMC Public Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):761
pubmed: 28969697
BJOG. 2014 Aug;121(9):1127-35; discussion 1136
pubmed: 24511914
BMC Public Health. 2015 Aug 08;15:763
pubmed: 26253219
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Aug 1;37(17):1425-31
pubmed: 22343272
Occup Environ Med. 2017 Dec;74(12):905-912
pubmed: 28756415
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018 May 21;18(1):101
pubmed: 29783942
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Oct 15;25(20):2688-99
pubmed: 11034658
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Occup Rehabil. 2012 Dec;22(4):462-77
pubmed: 22476607
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 May 1;40(9):593-600
pubmed: 25705964
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019 Nov;92(8):1109-1120
pubmed: 31175425
J Med Internet Res. 2015 May 13;17(5):e116
pubmed: 25972279
Work. 2016 Jun 4;54(3):647-55
pubmed: 27286071
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 06;6(1):245
pubmed: 29208034
Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Feb;42(4):586-593
pubmed: 30602340
J Occup Rehabil. 2018 Mar;28(1):170-179
pubmed: 28401441
J R Soc Med. 2011 May;104(5):198-207
pubmed: 21558098
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 30;3:CD011618
pubmed: 28358173
J Occup Rehabil. 2018 Jun;28(2):252-264
pubmed: 28550417
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 May;175(5):733-43
pubmed: 25799308
BMJ. 2005 Apr 9;330(7495):802-3
pubmed: 15817531
Psychother Psychosom. 2013;82(3):177-86
pubmed: 23548852
BMC Public Health. 2011 Oct 31;11:838
pubmed: 22040066
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2017 Dec;51(12):1198-1211
pubmed: 28565923
Occup Environ Med. 2018 Sep;75(9):675-686
pubmed: 29954920
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Nov 15;39(24):1999-2006
pubmed: 25271499
J Rehabil Med. 2016 Nov 11;48(10):887-892
pubmed: 27786344
Occup Environ Med. 2013 Apr;70(4):223-30
pubmed: 23112266
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012 Feb;51(2):230-42
pubmed: 21415023
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 17;9(6):e100100
pubmed: 24936656
J Occup Rehabil. 2017 Mar;27(1):82-91
pubmed: 26910406
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 25;(9):CD007569
pubmed: 26405010
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD006389
pubmed: 23235630
J Occup Health Psychol. 2019 Feb;24(1):198-212
pubmed: 28956942
Lancet. 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609-13
pubmed: 9746022
J Rheumatol Suppl. 1987 Aug;14 Suppl 15:33-9
pubmed: 3656305