ArticlePloS one2013
Economic evaluation of a problem solving intervention to prevent recurrent sickness absence in workers with common mental disorders.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational health interventions' impact on absenteeism and economic returns: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Pooled it
- Evidence for the Cost-Effectiveness of Return-to-Work Interventions for Mental Illness Related Sickness Absences: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions for common mental disorders in the occupational health service: a systematic review with a narrative synthesis.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2020Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Conditions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- The role of healthcare providers in sustainable return-to-work for individuals with common mental disorders.British medical bulletin · 2025Review
- Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a stress management training for leaders of small and medium sized enterprises - study protocol for a randomized controlled-trial.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Costs of sickness absence in a service company in Colombia: case analysis by gender and occupation.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMTArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWorkers with common mental disorders (CMDs) frequently experience recurrent sickness absence but scientifically evaluated interventions to prevent recurrences are lacking. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a problem solving intervention aimed at preventing recurrent sickness absence in workers with CMDs compared to care as usual.
methodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12 months follow-up. Treatment providers were randomised to either a 2-day training in the SHARP-at work intervention, i.e. a problem solving intervention, or care as usual. Effect outcomes were the incidence of recurrent sickness absence and time to recurrent sickness absence. Self-reported health care utilisation was measured by questionnaires. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the societal perspective and a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) from the employer's perspective were conducted.
resultsThe CEA showed that the SHARP-at work intervention was more effective but also more expensive than care as usual. The CBA revealed that employer's occupational health care costs were significantly higher in the intervention group compared to care as usual. Overall, the SHARP-at work intervention showed no economic benefit compared to care as usual.
conclusionsAs implementation of the SHARP-at work intervention might require additional investments, health care policy makers need to decide if these investments are worthwhile considering the results that can be accomplished in reducing recurrent sickness absence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.