ArticleBMC public health2017
Improving the effectiveness of sickness benefit case management through a public-private partnership? A difference-in-difference analysis in eighteen Danish municipalities.
Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Promoting labour market inclusion of the chronically ill: a scoping review of Scandinavian countries' efforts.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2023Article
- Public-private partnership models for rehabilitation service delivery: A scoping review.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate whether a multidimensional public-private partnership intervention, focussing on improving the quality and efficiency of sickness benefit case management, reduced the sickness benefit duration and the duration until self-support.
methodsWe used a difference-in-difference (DID) design with six intervention municipalities and 12 matched control municipalities in Denmark. The study sample comprised 282,103 sickness benefit spells exceeding four weeks. The intervention group with 110,291 spells received the intervention, and the control group with 171,812 spells received ordinary sickness benefit case management. Using register data, we fitted Cox proportional hazard ratio models, estimating hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CI).
resultsWe found no joint effect of the intervention on the sickness benefit duration (HR 1.02, CI 0.97-1.07) or the duration until self-support (HR 0.99, CI 0.96-1.02). The effect varied among the six municipalities, with sickness benefit HRs ranging from 0.96 (CI 0.93-1.00) to 1.13 (CI 1.08-1.18) and self-support HRs ranging from 0.91 (CI 0.82-1.00) to 1.11 (CI 1.06-1.17).
conclusionsCompared to receiving ordinary sickness benefit management the intervention had on average no effect on the sickness benefit duration or duration until self-support. However, the effect varied considerably among the six municipalities possibly due to differences in the implementation or the complexity of the intervention.
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.