Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33641712›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2021

A case management occupational health model to facilitate earlier return to work of NHS staff with common mental health disorders: a feasibility study.

Vaughan Parsons, Dorota Juszczyk, Gill Gilworth, Georgia Ntani, Paul McCrone, Stephani Hatch, Robert Shannon, Max Henderson, David Coggon, Mariam Molokhia and 4 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Supporting return to work after psychiatric hospitalization-A cluster randomized study (RETURN-study).European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Vaughan ParsonsOccupational Health Service, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0523-3770
Dorota JuszczykOccupational Health Service, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2187-8085
Gill GilworthOccupational Health Service, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1408-8878
Georgia NtaniMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7481-6860
Paul McCroneKing's Health Economics, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7001-4502
Stephani HatchDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9103-2427
Robert ShannonFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1153-6754
Max HendersonLiaison Psychiatry, Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1302-0284
David CoggonMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1930-3987
Mariam MolokhiaPopulation Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1989-7327
Julia SmedleyUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6464-3716
Amanda GriffithsDivision of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1413-4328
Karen Walker-BoneMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5992-1459
Ira MadanOccupational Health Service, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2200-7329
King's College London · GBMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit · GBLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Department of Health 15/107/02Medical Research Council MC_PC_15015Medical Research Council MC_PC_21002Wellcome Trust 203380/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NHS is the biggest employer in the UK. Depression and anxiety are common reasons for sickness absence among staff. Evidence suggests that an intervention based on a case management model using a biopsychosocial approach could be cost-effective and lead to earlier return to work for staff with common mental health disorders.

objectiveThe objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an early occupational health referral and case management intervention to facilitate the return to work of NHS staff on sick leave with any common mental health disorder (e.g. depression or anxiety).

designA multicentre mixed-methods feasibility study with embedded process evaluation and economic analyses. The study comprised an updated systematic review, survey of care as usual, and development of an intervention in consultation with key stakeholders. Although this was not a randomised controlled trial, the study design comprised two arms where participants received either the intervention or care as usual.

participantsParticipants were NHS staff on sick leave for 7 or more consecutive days but less than 90 consecutive days, with a common mental health disorder.

interventionThe intervention involved early referral to occupational health combined with standardised work-focused case management. CONTROL/COMPARATOR: Participants in the control arm received care as usual. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, study processes (including methods of recruiting participants) and data collection tools to measure return to work, episodes of sickness absence, workability (a worker's functional ability to perform their job), occupational functioning, symptomatology and cost-effectiveness proposed for use in a main trial.

resultsForty articles and two guidelines were included in an updated systematic review. A total of 49 of the 126 (39%) occupational health providers who were approached participated in a national survey of care as usual. Selected multidisciplinary stakeholders contributed to the development of the work-focused case management intervention (including a training workshop). Six NHS trusts (occupational health departments) agreed to take part in the study, although one trust withdrew prior to participant recruitment, citing staff shortages. At mixed intervention sites, participants were sequentially allocated to each arm, where possible. Approximately 1938 (3.9%) NHS staff from the participating sites were on sick leave with a common mental health disorder during the study period. Forty-two sick-listed NHS staff were screened for eligibility on receipt of occupational health management referrals. Twenty-four (57%) participants were consented: 11 (46%) received the case management intervention and 13 (54%) received care as usual. Follow-up data were collected from 11 out of 24 (46%) participants at 3 months and 10 out of 24 (42%) participants at 6 months. The case management intervention and case manager training were found to be acceptable and inexpensive to deliver. Possible contamination issues are likely in a future trial if participants are individually randomised at mixed intervention sites. HARMS: No adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The method of identification and recruitment of eligible sick-listed staff was ineffective in practice because uptake of referral to occupational health was low, but a new targeted method has been devised.

conclusionAll study questions were addressed. Difficulties raising organisational awareness of the study coupled with a lack of change in occupational health referral practices by line managers affected the identification and recruitment of participants. Strategies to overcome these barriers in a main trial were identified. The case management intervention was fit for purpose and acceptable to deliver in the NHS.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN14621901.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Mental HealthOccupational HealthCase ManagementCost-Benefit AnalysisFeasibility StudiesHumansReturn to WorkState MedicineCASE MANAGEMENTMENTAL HEALTHOCCUPATIONAL HEALTHRETURN TO WORK

Identifiers

PMID33641712
PMCPMC7957455
OpenAlexW3133809292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.