↓ Skip to main content

Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011618.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Vogel, Stefan Schandelmaier, Thomas Zumbrunn, Shanil Ebrahim, Wout EL de Boer, Jason W Busse, Regina Kunz

Abstract

To limit long-term sick leave and associated consequences, insurers, healthcare providers and employers provide programmes to facilitate disabled people's return to work. These programmes include a variety of coordinated and individualised interventions. Despite the increasing popularity of such programmes, their benefits remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the long-term effectiveness of return-to-work coordination programmes compared to usual practice in workers at risk for long-term disability. To assess the effects of return-to-work coordination programmes versus usual practice for workers on sick leave or disability. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 November 2016. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled workers absent from work for at least four weeks and randomly assigned them to return-to-work coordination programmes or usual practice. Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias from eligible trials. We contacted authors for additional data where required. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence. We identified 14 studies from nine countries that enrolled 12,568 workers. Eleven studies focused on musculoskeletal problems, two on mental health and one on both. Most studies (11 of 14) followed workers 12 months or longer. Risk of bias was low in 10 and high in 4 studies, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.We found no benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on return-to-work outcomes.For short-term follow-up of six months, we found no effect on time to return to work (hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.88, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (mean difference (MD) -16.18 work days per year, 95% CI -32.42 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work, that is, regardless of whether they had remained at work until last follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19, very low-quality evidence).For long-term follow-up of 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD -14.84 work days per year, 95% CI -38.56 to 8.88, low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.15, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.09, moderate-quality evidence).For very long-term follow-up of longer than 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD 7.00 work days per year, 95% CI -15.17 to 29.17, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02, low-quality evidence).We found only small benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on patient-reported outcomes. All differences were below the minimal clinically important difference (MID). Offering return-to-work coordination programmes for workers on sick leave for at least four weeks results in no benefits when compared to usual practice. We found no significant differences for the outcomes time to return to work, cumulative sickness absence, the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up or the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work at short-term, long-term or very long-term follow-up. For patient-reported outcomes, we found only marginal effects below the MID. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate across all outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 50%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Student > Master 1 25%
Other 1 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 25%
Other 4 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 100%
Psychology 1 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 25%
Sports and Recreations 1 25%
Other 2 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2019.
All research outputs
#957,494
of 13,532,334 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,946
of 10,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,961
of 264,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,532,334 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.