ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2021
Understanding work participation among employees with common mental disorders: What works, for whom, under what circumstances and how? A systematic realist review protocol.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Towards a better understanding of work participation among employees with common mental health problems: a systematic realist review.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2022Pooled it
- Tailored job coaching for people with severe mental illness living in supported housing settings: A realist approach.PloS one · 2026Article
- How is autonomy supported for people with dementia living in a nursing home, to what extent and under what circumstances? A realist evaluation.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- A classification of human resource management bundles for the inclusion of vulnerable workers.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Strengthening supervisor support for employees with common mental health problems: developing a workplace intervention using intervention mapping.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Promoting Factors to Stay at Work Among Employees With Common Mental Health Problems: A Multiple-Stakeholder Concept Mapping Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWork participation among employees with common mental disorders (CMDs) is an increasingly important, yet highly complex phenomenon. Given the call for preventing instead of reacting to negative work outcomes, there is a need to understand how employees with CMDs can continue working.
objectives1) to provide insights in applying a realist approach to the literature review process and 2) to present a way to develop an explanatory framework on work participation, the related causal mechanisms and the interaction with the work context.
methodsA systematic realist literature review, using stay at work (SAW) and work performance (WP) as outcomes of work participation. This protocol paper explains the rationale, tools and procedures developed and used for identification, selection, appraisal and synthesis of included studies.
resultsThe review process entailed six steps to develop so called 'middle range program theories'. Each step followed a systematic, iterative procedure using context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations.
conclusionsConducting a realist review adds on the understanding to promote work participation, by examining the heterogeneity and complexity of intervention- and observational studies. This paper facilitates other researchers within the field of occupational health by demonstrating ways to develop a framework on work participation using realist synthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.