Does employer involvement in primary health care enhance return to work for patients with stress-related mental disorders? a cluster randomized controlled trial.
Employer
Return to work
Sick leave
Stress-related disorders
Journal
BMC primary care
ISSN: 2731-4553
Titre abrégé: BMC Prim Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300889006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 09 2023
20 09 2023
Historique:
received:
28
08
2022
accepted:
04
09
2023
medline:
22
9
2023
pubmed:
21
9
2023
entrez:
20
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Stress-related disorders have become a major challenge for society and are associated with rising levels of sick leave. The provision of support to facilitate the return to work (RTW) for this patient group is of great importance. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether a new systematic procedure with collaboration between general practitioners (GPs), rehabilitation coordinators (RCs) and employers could reduce sick leave days for this patient group. Employed patients with stress-related diagnoses seeking care at primary health care centres (PHCCs) were included in either the intervention group (n = 54), following the systematic intervention procedure, or the control group (n = 58), receiving treatment as usual (TAU). The intervention included a) a training day for participant GPs and RCs, b) a standardised procedure for GPs and RCs to follow after training, c) the opportunity to receive clinical advice from specialist physicians in the research group. Outcome measures for RTW were sick leave days. The median number of registered gross sick leave days was lower for the control group at six, 12 and 24 months after inclusion, but the difference was not statistically significant. The control group had significantly fewer net sick leave days at three months (p = 0.03) at six months (p = 0.00) and at 12-months follow-up (p = 0.01). At 24 months, this difference was no longer significant. The PRIMA intervention, which applied a standardized procedure for employer involvement in the rehabilitation process for patients with stress-related disorders, actually increased time to RTW compared to TAU. However, at 24 months, the benefit of TAU could no longer be confirmed. The study was registered on 16/01/2017 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03022760).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Stress-related disorders have become a major challenge for society and are associated with rising levels of sick leave. The provision of support to facilitate the return to work (RTW) for this patient group is of great importance. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether a new systematic procedure with collaboration between general practitioners (GPs), rehabilitation coordinators (RCs) and employers could reduce sick leave days for this patient group.
METHOD
Employed patients with stress-related diagnoses seeking care at primary health care centres (PHCCs) were included in either the intervention group (n = 54), following the systematic intervention procedure, or the control group (n = 58), receiving treatment as usual (TAU). The intervention included a) a training day for participant GPs and RCs, b) a standardised procedure for GPs and RCs to follow after training, c) the opportunity to receive clinical advice from specialist physicians in the research group. Outcome measures for RTW were sick leave days.
RESULTS
The median number of registered gross sick leave days was lower for the control group at six, 12 and 24 months after inclusion, but the difference was not statistically significant. The control group had significantly fewer net sick leave days at three months (p = 0.03) at six months (p = 0.00) and at 12-months follow-up (p = 0.01). At 24 months, this difference was no longer significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The PRIMA intervention, which applied a standardized procedure for employer involvement in the rehabilitation process for patients with stress-related disorders, actually increased time to RTW compared to TAU. However, at 24 months, the benefit of TAU could no longer be confirmed. The study was registered on 16/01/2017 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03022760).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37730561
doi: 10.1186/s12875-023-02151-0
pii: 10.1186/s12875-023-02151-0
pmc: PMC10512560
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03022760']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
195Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Stress. 2014 Jan;17(1):59-69
pubmed: 24188506
J R Soc Med. 2011 May;104(5):198-207
pubmed: 21558098
Occup Med (Lond). 2010 Jun;60(4):277-86
pubmed: 20511268
BMC Public Health. 2019 Aug 14;19(1):1110
pubmed: 31412832
BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 5;20(1):526
pubmed: 33153461
J Occup Health Psychol. 2018 Jan;23(1):1-17
pubmed: 28358567
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 4;12(10):e0185781
pubmed: 28977041
Occup Environ Med. 2020 Jul;77(7):454-461
pubmed: 32291291
Scand J Psychol. 2017 Dec;58(6):551-561
pubmed: 29105127
BMC Public Health. 2014 Aug 09;14:821
pubmed: 25106094
Cogn Behav Ther. 2014;43(4):289-98
pubmed: 24911260
Disabil Rehabil. 2019 Apr;41(7):786-795
pubmed: 29182029
Psychol Med. 2016 Dec;46(16):3263-3274
pubmed: 27609709
BMC Public Health. 2010 Jun 02;10:301
pubmed: 20515510
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Feb;78(2):206-11
pubmed: 19647973
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 31;15(7):e0234897
pubmed: 32735586
BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 15;5(6):e007122
pubmed: 26078309
Occup Environ Med. 2023 Sep;80(9):538-544
pubmed: 37500536
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 6;18(1):838
pubmed: 29976181
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2018 Aug;91(6):675-687
pubmed: 29808433
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 29;18(19):
pubmed: 34639580
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2022 Apr 1;48(3):173-189
pubmed: 34878557
Occup Med (Lond). 2017 Aug 01;67(6):461-468
pubmed: 28898968
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 18;17(1):472
pubmed: 28521731
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jul 30;19(1):133
pubmed: 30060734
Occup Environ Med. 2018 Sep;75(9):675-686
pubmed: 29954920
Work. 2018;59(1):3-13
pubmed: 29355116
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 5;10(7):e034849
pubmed: 32624469
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Sep 11;21(1):187
pubmed: 32917138
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Apr 24;15(5):
pubmed: 29695093
J Occup Rehabil. 2012 Dec;22(4):553-64
pubmed: 22653629
Scand J Psychol. 2017 Dec;58(6):504-509
pubmed: 29023756
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jun 25;21(1):1222
pubmed: 34167513
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jul 28;14:325
pubmed: 25066375
J Rehabil Med. 2009 Jul;41(8):632-8
pubmed: 19565157
Women Health. 2011 Nov;51(7):676-92
pubmed: 22082247
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 22;11:40
pubmed: 27001107
J Occup Rehabil. 2015 Sep;25(3):627-37
pubmed: 25634798
Scand J Psychol. 2020 Apr;61(2):281-289
pubmed: 31691305
J Occup Health Psychol. 2019 Feb;24(1):198-212
pubmed: 28956942
Psychol Med. 2016 Mar;46(4):683-97
pubmed: 26620157
BMC Psychol. 2020 Mar 19;8(1):26
pubmed: 32188513
BMC Public Health. 2017 Mar 16;17(1):264
pubmed: 28302088