Work-related rehabilitation aftercare for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: results of a randomized-controlled multicenter trial

Evaluating a multimodal, clinical and work-directed intervention (RTW-PIA) to support sustainable return to work among employees with mental disorders: study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Mental disorders (MDs) are one of the leading causes for workforce sickness absence and disability worldwide. The burden, costs and challenges are enormous for the individuals concerned, employers and society at large. Although most MDs are characterised by a high risk of relapse after treatment or by chronic courses, interventions that link medical-psychotherapeutic approaches with work-directed components to facilitate a sustainable return to work (RTW) are rare. This protocol describes the design of a study to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness and implementation process of a multimodal, clinical and work-directed intervention, called RTW-PIA, aimed at employees with MDs to achieve sustainable RTW in Germany.

METHODS

The study consists of an effectiveness, a health-economic and a process evaluation, designed as a two-armed, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, conducted in German psychiatric outpatient clinics. Sick-listed employees with MDs will receive either the 18-month RTW-PIA treatment in conjunction with care as usual, or care as usual only. RTW-PIA consists of a face-to-face individual RTW support, RTW aftercare group meetings, and web-based aftercare. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after completion of baseline survey. The primary outcome is the employees´ achievement of sustainable RTW, defined as reporting less than six weeks of working days missed out due to sickness absence within 12 months after first RTW. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, mental functioning, RTW self-efficacy, overall job satisfaction, severity of mental illness and work ability. The health-economic evaluation will be conducted from a societal and public health care perspective, as well as from the employer's perspective in a cost-benefit analysis. The design will be supplemented by a qualitative effect evaluation using pre- and post-interviews, and a multimethod process evaluation examining various predefined key process indicators from different stakeholder perspectives.

DISCUSSION

By applying a comprehensive, multimethodological evaluation design, this study captures various facets of RTW-PIA. In case of promising results for sustainable RTW, RTW-PIA may be integrated into standard care within German psychiatric outpatient clinics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00026232 , 1 September 2021).

Non-pharmacological interventions to promote work participation in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the EULAR taskforce on healthy and sustainable work participation

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the evidence on effectiveness of non-pharmacological (ie, non-drug, non-surgical) interventions on work participation (sick leave, work status and presenteeism) in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS) was performed. Qualitative (RCTs/LOS) and quantitative (RCTs) evidence syntheses were conducted. Mixed-effects restricted maximum likelihood models were used to combine effect estimates, using standardised mean differences (SMDs) as the summary measure for each outcome domain separately, with a negative SMD favouring the intervention over comparator. Subgroup analyses were performed for type of RMD, risk status at baseline regarding adverse work outcomes and intervention characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 10 153 records, 64 studies (37 RCTs and 27 LOS; corresponding to k=71 treatment comparisons) were included. Interventions were mostly conducted in clinical settings (44 of 71, 62%). Qualitative synthesis suggested clear beneficial effects of 7 of 64 (11%) interventions for sick leave, 1 of 18 (6%) for work status and 1 of 17 (6%) for presenteeism. Quantitative synthesis (37 RCTs; k=43 treatment comparisons) suggested statistically significant but only small clinical effects on each outcome (SMD_{sick leave} (95% CI)=-0.23 (-0.33 to -0.13; k=42); SMD_{work status}=-0.38 (-0.63 to -0.12; k=9); SMD_presenteeism=-0.25 (-0.39 to -0.12; k=13)).

CONCLUSION

In people with RMDs, empirical evidence shows that non-pharmacological interventions have small effects on work participation. Effectiveness depends on contextual factors such as disease, population risk status, intervention characteristics and outcome of interest, highlighting the importance of tailoring interventions.

Interventions to Promote Work-Focused Care by Healthcare Providers for Individuals with Musculoskeletal Conditions a Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Building on an emerging body of evidence, this scoping review aimed to provide an overview of current interventions to promote work-focused care by healthcare providers for individuals with musculoskeletal conditions and to identify current knowledge gaps for future research.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in Pubmed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycInfo using Medical Subject Heading terms and text words relating to musculoskeletal conditions, interventions to promote work-focused care and work-related outcomes. Articles involving any interventions with elements of work-focused care delivered by healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions were reviewed for suitability and inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles (18 intervention trials) were identified. Most studies were multidisciplinary interventions incorporating one or more elements of work-focused care including: work-related assessment to identify barriers to working, vocational advice/coaching or education to address barriers to working, involvement of the workplace stakeholders, restoration of fitness for work and regular communication with multidisciplinary team members. Most studies (61 %) concluded that their interventions achieved the desired work-related outcomes although firm conclusions could not be made regarding the effectiveness of a particular component, content or strategy of work-focused care itself because of the variability in the type and number of elements and outcomes used.

CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence demonstrating the potential for healthcare providers to improve work outcomes for those with musculoskeletal conditions. Additional training is required to increase confidence in this area of practice. Accepting that work-focused care is important, however, does not diminish the challenge it presents.

A scoping review to ascertain the parameters for an evidence synthesis of psychological interventions to improve work and wellbeing outcomes among employees with chronic pain

Background: Psychological interventions have mixed effects on improving employee outcomes, partly due to significant variability across studies and a lack of focus on mechanisms of action. This scoping review reports on the parameters of these interventions and examines intervention content to bring clarity to this heterogeneous topic area and direct future systematic review work.

Method: Six databases were searched (Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO and Web of Science) from April 2010 to August 2020, and a grey literature search was undertaken. Screening was undertaken independently by two authors. The results summarised country, participant and employment characteristics, psychological interventions and work, health and wellbeing outcomes. 10% of the papers were analysed to determine the feasibility of coding intervention descriptions for theory and behaviour change technique (BCT) components.

Results: Database searches yielded 9341 titles, of which 91 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in Europe (78%) and included males and females (95%) ranging in age from 31-56.6 years although other demographic, and employment information was lacking. Musculoskeletal pain was common (87%). Psychological interventions commonly included cognitive behavioural therapy (30%) and education (28%). Most studies employed a randomised control trial design (64%). Over half contained a control group (54%). Interventions were delivered in mostly healthcare settings (72%) by health professionals. Multiple outcomes were often reported, many of which involved measuring sickness absence and return-to-work (62%) and pain and general health (53%). Within the feasibility analysis, most papers met the minimum criteria of containing one paragraph of intervention description, but none explicitly mentioned theory or BCTs.

Conclusion: Psychological interventions for employees with chronic pain vary in their nature and implementation. We have shown scoping reviews can be used to assess the feasibility of applying tools from health psychology to identify the content of these interventions in future systematic review work to improve intervention development.

[Evidence-Based Approaches in Rehabilitation - Research Designs and Conceptual Foundations for Analyzing the Efficacy and Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Treatments]

Rehabilitation is evidenced based if treatments are applied that proved to enhance rehabilitation outcomes - generally patients' health or participation- effectively in a causal manner. Randomized control trials (RCTs) allow determining the efficacy of treatments unambiguously. If alternative research designs (e. g. case-control studies, cohort studies, observational studies) are adopted, the association of the treatment and the improvement of the health status or participation may be biased by confounding variables (limitations of internal validity). Several variants of the basic RCT designs have been developed (e. g. cluster-randomized trials, factorial designs, pragmatic trials) to adapt RCTs to the demands of practical applications. Additionally, deciding and acting evidence-based requires rehabilitation treatments and recommendations which have been developed on a solid theoretical basis and which are applied in practical rehabilitation care appropriately. Especially, because treatments have to be chosen and provided according to rehabilitation patients' individual needs. Furthermore, in every day care the application of treatments has to be matched to the specific conditions of the respective rehabilitation institution. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of evidence requires not only efficacy studies adopting RCTs. Additionally, knowledge about treatment efficacy has to be complemented by studies investigating conceptual and theoretical foundations of effective treatments (intervention design) as well as studies to apply treatments in practical rehabilitation care (implementation research) appropriately.

Chronic Diseases & Employment: An Overview of Existing Training Tools for Employers

Background: The number of people living with one or more chronic diseases (e.g., neurological, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic disorders) has dramatically increased in recent decades, affecting all sectors, including the social and economic aspects of the work sector. In the frame of the European Union (EU) Joint Action “Chrodis Plus: Implementing good practices for chronic diseases”, a review has been performed in order to identify and analyze existing training tools for employers, including managers and Human Resources Staff (HRs), which aimed at creating and fostering inclusive and supportive workplaces for workers with chronic conditions and to avoid absenteeism, presenteeism, and early retirement. Methods: The training tools were identified through a revision of online published materials through Google Scholar and internet searches, published since 2006, in English, Italian, and Spanish. Results: The mapping of existing training tools highlighted the existence of two types of training tools: the first type includes those implemented by Social and Institutional Organizations (e.g., Patients’ Associations, Ministries, Unions), external to the company; the second involves those implemented by Large Multinational Enterprises. Conclusions: to promote an effective and concrete inclusion and participation of employees that are affected by chronic diseases in the labor market is necessary to involve employers and managers in training programs.

[The impact of catastrophizing on the effect of depression on pain and functional ability : A longitudinal mediator analysis]

BACKGROUND

While the association between pain and depression is well proven, little is known about the mechanisms influencing this relationship. The cognitive distortion of catastrophizing plays a significant role in several concepts of both diseases.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze the role of catastrophizing on the effect of depression on pain and functional ability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Participants were recruited from 11 outpatient rehabilitation centers in Germany at the beginning of orthopedic rehabilitation aftercare. Perceived functional ability (spinal function sort), pain intensity (rating scales) and physical functioning (36-item Short-Form Health Survey, SF-36) were assessed as dependent variables at the beginning of the aftercare (T1) as well as 6 months later (T2). The independent variable depression (Patient Health Questionnaire and Mental Health Index of the SF-36) as well as the mediator catastrophizing (Coping Strategies Questionnaire) were measured at T1. Pathway models were used to analyze the direct and indirect proportions of the total effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable and the role of catastrophizing as a mediator of this association.

RESULTS

A total of 241 patients were included in the analyses. Depression had a significant total effect on pain as well as functional capacity. Catastrophizing mediated substantial proportions of these effects (42.9-87.1%).

CONCLUSION

Catastrophizing mediates the relationship between depression and pain as well as functional capacity; therefore, the reduction of catastrophizing thoughts and attitudes should be a focus in rehabilitation programs.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of return-to-work coordination programmes versus usual practice for workers on sick leave or disability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.