Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32816203›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021

Vocational Rehabilitation for Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain With or Without a Work Module: An Economic Evaluation.

Michiel F Reneman, Timo T Beemster, Sybren J Welling, Jochen O Mierau, Hermien H Dijk

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michiel F RenemanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Haren, P.O. Box 30.002, 9750 RA, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.f.reneman@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4058-3437
Timo T BeemsterDepartment of Research and Development, Heliomare Rehabilitation Center, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands.
Sybren J WellingFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jochen O MierauFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Hermien H DijkFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University of Groningen · NLNetherlands Center for Occupational Diseases · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Vocational rehabilitation (VR) is a widely used intervention aimed to optimize work participation for patients on sick leave due to chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP). Economic evaluations of care as usual VR are scarce, and may provide relevant information to guide clinical, reimbursement and policy decisions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of VR for patients on sick leave due to CMP with an additional work module (VR+) compared to VR without work module, from a societal and employers' perspective. Methods A retrospective longitudinal cohort study within a Dutch care as usual context was applied. Participants with CMP and decreased work participation originating from seven Dutch rehabilitation centers were included in this study. Participants underwent VR or VR+. Main data sources at baseline and discharge: Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) based on EQ-5D, intervention costs, self-reported productivity and health care utilization. Main analyses cost-effectiveness, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC); and ROI analyses with use of the human capital method. Results N = 324 participants were analyzed. The results show that VR+ was cost-effective compared to VR: mean cost savings of €820 per 0.012 QALY gained. CEAC suggests probability of VR+ being cost-effective is > 0.91 for thresholds of €20.000 and higher. The mean ROI of VR+ for employers was 38%. Conclusion It was concluded that at discharge, VR+ was cost-effective compared to VR. ROI was positive for employers.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal PainRehabilitation, VocationalChronic PainCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesCEACChronic painCost-effectivenessICERQALYReturn on investment

Identifiers

PMID32816203
PMCPMC7954755
OpenAlexW3080274993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.