Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33978874›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2022

Identifying Return to Work Self-Efficacy Trajectories in Employees with Mental Health Problems.

Lena Horn, Maitta Spronken, Evelien P M Brouwers, Renée S M de Reuver, Margot C W Joosen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The relationship between returning to work self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression in renal cancer patients: a cross-lagged analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  7. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Lena HornTranzo Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Professor Cobbenhagenlaan 125, 5037 DB, Tilburg, The Netherlands. lehorn@zohomail.eu.ORCID 0000-0001-6190-7042
Maitta SpronkenTranzo Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Professor Cobbenhagenlaan 125, 5037 DB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Evelien P M BrouwersTranzo Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Professor Cobbenhagenlaan 125, 5037 DB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Renée S M de ReuverDepartment Human Resource Studies, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Margot C W JoosenTranzo Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Professor Cobbenhagenlaan 125, 5037 DB, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Tilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Return to work self-efficacy (RTW-SE) is a strong predictor of return to work (RTW) in employees with mental health problems (MHPs). However, little is known about the development of RTW-SE during the RTW process. In this study, we aimed to identify RTW-SE trajectories in the year following sick leave in employees with MHPs and provided a description of the trajectories in terms of personal and work characteristics, and RTW status. Methods This multi-wave study included 111 employees with MHPs. RTW-SE was measured at baseline, and at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up with the RTW-SE scale for employees with MHPs. Results Latent class growth analysis revealed six trajectories. In three trajectories employees had increasing RTW-SE scores, namely (class 1) low start, moderate increase, (class 3) moderate start, small increase and (class 5) moderate start, steep increase. The other trajectories were defined by (class 2) persistently high, (class 6) persistently low, and (class 4) decreasing RTW-SE scores over time. Employees across the various trajectories differed significantly with respect to RTW status, and personal and work characteristics measured at baseline, including age, gender, and type of MHP. Less favorable trajectories (class 4 and 6) were characterized by higher age, a higher prevalence of anxiety disorder and lower RTW rates. The most favorable trajectory (class 2) was characterized by a higher proportion of stress-related disorders and less major depression diagnoses. Conclusions Large heterogeneity exists in terms of RTW-SE trajectories in employees with MHPs and significant differences were found across the trajectories regarding personal and work characteristics, and RTW status. Insights into RTW-SE trajectories and their attributes are important to advance more effective and personalized RTW treatment for employees with MHPs.

Indexed as

Return to WorkSelf EfficacyEmploymentHumansMental HealthSick LeaveLatent class growth analysisMental health problemsReturn to work self-efficacySick leaveTrajectories

Identifiers

PMID33978874
PMCPMC8858915
OpenAlexW3160020951

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.