Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33829365›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021

'Return to Work' Coordinator Model and Work Participation of Employees: A Natural Intervention Study in Finland.

Johanna Kausto, Tuula Oksanen, Aki Koskinen, Jaana Pentti, Pauliina Mattila-Holappa, Leena Kaila-Kangas, Nina Nevala, Mika Kivimäki, Jussi Vahtera, Jenni Ervasti

Abstract 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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors.

Johanna KaustoFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 40, 00250, Helsinki, Finland. johanna.kausto@ttl.fi.ORCID 0000-0002-2898-0018
Tuula OksanenSchool of Medicine, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Aki KoskinenFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 40, 00250, Helsinki, Finland.
Jaana PenttiDepartment of Public Health, University of Turku, and Centre for Population Health Research, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Pauliina Mattila-HolappaFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 40, 00250, Helsinki, Finland.
Leena Kaila-KangasFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 40, 00250, Helsinki, Finland.
Nina NevalaFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 40, 00250, Helsinki, Finland.
Mika KivimäkiFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 40, 00250, Helsinki, Finland.
Jussi VahteraDepartment of Public Health, University of Turku, and Centre for Population Health Research, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Jenni ErvastiFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 40, 00250, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Employers increasingly use 'return to work' (RTW) coordinators to support work ability and extend working careers, particularly among employees with reduced work ability. We examined whether applying this model was associated with changes in employee sickness absence and disability retirements. Methods We used data from the Finnish Public Sector study from 2009 until 2015. Employees where the model was introduced in 2012 constituted the cases (n = 4120, one municipality) and employees where the model was not in use during the follow-up, represented the controls (n = 5600, two municipalities). We analysed risk of disability retirement in 2013-2015 and risk of sickness absence after (2013-2015) vs. before (2009-2011) intervention by case-control status. Results The incidence of disability retirement after the intervention was lower in cases compared to controls both in the total population (hazard ratio HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.79) and in the subgroup of participants with reduced work ability (HR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-0.99). The risk of sickness absence increased from pre-intervention to post-intervention period both among cases and controls although the relative increase was greater among cases (RR

Indexed as

Return to WorkSick LeaveFinlandHumansOccupationsRetirementDisability managementMunicipalitiesReturn to work coordinationSickness absenceWork ability

Identifiers

PMID33829365
PMCPMC8558281

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.