Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28615017›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Protocol for the effect evaluation of independent medical evaluation after six months sick leave: a randomized controlled trial of independent medical evaluation versus treatment as usual in Norway.

Elisabeth Husabo, Karin Monstad, Tor Helge Holmås, Irene Oyeflaten, Erik L Werner, Silje Maeland

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02524392 (Effect Evaluation of Independent Medical Evaluation), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02524392 nacompletednot on this map

Effect Evaluation of Independent Medical Evaluation (IME) After Six Months Sick Leave: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Independent Medical Evaluation (IME) Versus Treatment as Usual in Norway

TypeinterventionalSponsorNORCE Norwegian Research Centre ASRan2015 to 2018Enrolled7,642ConditionsAll International Classification of Primary Care 2 DiagnosesArmsIndependent medical evaluation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Elisabeth HusaboUni Research Health, PB 7810, 5020, Bergen, Norway. elisabeth.husabo@uni.no.ORCID 0000-0001-5815-086X
Karin MonstadUni Research Rokkan Centre, PB 7810, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
Tor Helge HolmåsUni Research Rokkan Centre, PB 7810, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
Irene OyeflatenUni Research Health, PB 7810, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
Erik L WernerDepartment of General Practice, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, PB 1130, Blindern, 0318, Oslo, Norway.
Silje MaelandUni Research Health, PB 7810, 5020, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been discussed whether the relationship between a patient on sick leave and his/her general practitioner (GP) is too close, as this may hinder the GP's objective evaluation of need for sick leave. Independent medical evaluation involves an independent physician consulting the patient. This could lead to new perspectives on sick leave and how to follow-up the patient. METHODS/

designThe current study is a randomized controlled trial in a Norwegian primary care context, involving an effect evaluation, a cost/benefit analysis, and a qualitative evaluation. Independent medical evaluation will be compared to treatment as usual, i.e., the physicians' and social insurance agencies' current management of long-term sick-listed patients. Individuals aged 18-65 years, sick listed by their GP and on full or partial sick leave for the past 6 months in Hordaland county will be included. Exclusion criteria are pregnancy, cancer, dementia or an ICD-10 diagnosis. A total sample of 3800 will be randomly assigned to either independent medical evaluation or treatment as usual. Official register data will be used to measure the primary outcome; change in sickness benefits at 7, 9 and 12 months. Sick listed in other counties will serve as a second control group, if appropriate under the "common trend" assumption. DISCUSSION: The Norwegian effect evaluation of independent medical evaluation after 6 months sick leave is a large randomized controlled trial, and the first of its kind, to evaluate this type of intervention as a means of getting people back to work after long-term sickness absence.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02524392 . Registered June 23, 2015.

Indexed as

Independent Medical EvaluationReturn to WorkSick LeaveAdolescentAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPrimary Health CareYoung AdultDisabilityDisability pensionFamily physicianGeneral practiceGeneral practitionerPrimary careRandomized controlled trialSickness absenceSickness benefitsSocial insurance

Identifiers

PMID28615017
PMCPMC5471703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.