Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21336673›Full record

Trial reportJournal of occupational rehabilitation2011

A participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Sylvia J Vermeulen, Johannes R Anema, Antonius J M Schellart, Dirk L Knol, Willem van Mechelen, Allard J van der Beek

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  7. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sylvia J VermeulenDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.vermeulen@vumc.nl
Johannes R Anema
Antonius J M Schellart
Dirk L Knol
Willem van Mechelen
Allard J van der Beek
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

NCATS NIH HHS L30 TR001047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWithin the labour force workers without an employment contract represent a vulnerable group. In most cases, when sick-listed, these workers have no workplace/employer to return to. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness on return-to-work of a participatory return-to-work program compared to usual care for unemployed workers and temporary agency workers, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders.

methodsThe workers, sick-listed for 2-8 weeks due to musculoskeletal disorders, were randomly allocated to the participatory return-to-work program (n = 79) or to usual care (n = 84). The new program is a stepwise procedure aimed at making a consensus-based return-to-work plan, with the possibility of a temporary (therapeutic) workplace. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome measure was time to sustainable first return-to-work. Secondary outcome measures were duration of sickness benefit, functional status, pain intensity, and perceived health.

resultsThe median duration until sustainable first return-to-work was 161 days in the intervention group, compared to 299 days in the usual care group. The new return-to-work program resulted in a non-significant delay in RTW during the first 90 days, followed by a significant advantage in RTW rate after 90 days (hazard ratio of 2.24 [95% confidence interval 1.28-3.94] P = 0.005). No significant differences were found for the measured secondary outcomes.

conclusionsThe newly developed participatory return-to-work program seems to be a promising intervention to facilitate work resumption and reduce work disability among temporary agency workers and unemployed workers, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders.

Indexed as

EmploymentOccupational Health ServicesReferral and ConsultationSick LeaveAdultFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesNetherlandsPatient ParticipationProgram EvaluationProportional Hazards ModelsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID21336673
PMCPMC3173632
OpenAlexW2121271519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.