Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28381814›Full record

Trial reportJournal of occupational health2017

Economic evaluation of an intervention program with the aim to improve at-work productivity for workers with rheumatoid arthritis.

Cindy Noben, Myrthe van Vilsteren, Cécile Boot, Romy Steenbeek, Dirkjan van Schaardenburg, Johannes R Anema, Silvia Evers, Frans Nijhuis, Angelique de Rijk

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of occupational health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Impact of vasculitis on employment and income.Clinical and experimental rheumatology
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cindy NobenMaastricht University, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Caphri School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Health Services Research.
Myrthe van VilsterenVU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Public and Occupational Health.
Cécile BootVU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Public and Occupational Health.
Romy SteenbeekTNO Work, Health and Care.
Dirkjan van SchaardenburgJan van Breemen Research Institute.
Johannes R AnemaVU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Public and Occupational Health.
Silvia EversMaastricht University, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Caphri School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Health Services Research.
Frans NijhuisMaastricht University, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Work and Social Psychology.
Angelique de RijkMaastricht University, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Caphri School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Social Medicine.
EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLMaastricht University · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLTrimbos Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEvaluating the cost effectiveness and cost utility of an integrated care intervention and participatory workplace intervention for workers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to improve their work productivity.

methodsTwelve month follow-up economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) within specialized rheumatology treatment centers. Adults diagnosed with RA between 18-64 years, in a paid job for at least eight hours per week, experiencing minor difficulties in work functioning were randomized to the intervention (n = 75) or the care-as-usual (CAU) group (n = 75). Effect outcomes were productivity and quality of life (QALYs). Costs associated with healthcare, patient and family, productivity, and intervention were calculated from a societal perspective. Cost effectiveness and cost utility were assessed to indicate the incremental costs and benefits per additional unit of effect. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the findings.

resultsAt-work productivity loss was about 4.6 hours in the intervention group and 3.5 hours in the care as usual (CAU) group per two weeks. Differences in QALY were negligible; 0.77 for the CAU group and 0.74 for the intervention group. In total, average costs after twelve months follow-up were highest in the intervention group (€7,437.76) compared to the CAU group (€5,758.23). The cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses show that the intervention was less effective and (often) more expensive when compared to CAU. Sensitivity analyses supported these findings. DISCUSSION: The integrated care intervention and participatory workplace intervention for workers with RA provides gains neither in productivity at the workplace nor in quality of life. These results do not justify the additional costs.

Indexed as

EfficiencyAbsenteeismAdolescentAdultArthritis, RheumatoidCost-Benefit AnalysisEfficiency, OrganizationalFemaleHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOccupational HealthQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeCost effectivenessIntegrated careOccupational HealthParticipatory workplace interventionProductivityRheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID28381814
PMCPMC5478510
OpenAlexW2604481210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.