Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34224522›Full record

ArticleJBI evidence synthesis2021

eHealth interventions to facilitate work participation: a scoping review.

Tone Langjordet Johnsen, Thomas Johansen, Anne-Mette Hedeager Momsen, Torill Helene Tveito, Claus Vinther Nielsen, Cecilie Varsi, Irene Øyeflaten

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JBI evidence synthesis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Tone Langjordet JohnsenNORCE, Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.
Thomas JohansenNational Advisory Unit on Occupational Rehabilitation, Rauland, Norway.
Anne-Mette Hedeager MomsenDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Torill Helene TveitoDepartment of Health, Social and Welfare Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway, Horten, Norway.
Claus Vinther NielsenDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Cecilie VarsiFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway.
Irene ØyeflatenNORCE, Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway.
University of South-Eastern Norway · NOCentral Denmark Region · DKNORCE Norwegian Research Centre · NORegional Hospital West Jutland · DKSykehuset i Vestfold · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this scoping review was to identify studies combining the concepts of eHealth and work participation for sick-listed employees across diagnostic groups in health care and workplace contexts.

introductionThere is an increased demand for better health care services and technologies, and eHealth is proposed as a useful tool to improve efficiency and reduce costs. eHealth functions at the intersection of medical informatics, public health, and business, and may be a promising solution for managing the process of return to work among employees on sick leave. Assessment of work outcomes is essential in evaluating the effectiveness of health services, and there is a need to map the research literature on existing eHealth interventions to facilitate work participation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review considered studies combining two core concepts: eHealth and work participation. It considered studies on eHealth interventions for employees (18 to 65 years of age) on sick leave due to any type of diagnosis or disability, conducted by any stakeholder in workplace or health care contexts and in any country. Empirical data from both quantitative and qualitative studies were included.

methodsPublished and unpublished studies from January 1, 2008, to August 21, 2020, written in English were included in this review. The search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO clinical registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. A three-step search strategy was followed. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers and undertaken using an extraction tool developed specifically for the scoping review objectives.

resultsThis review identified 15 studies eligible for inclusion. Four studies delivered the eHealth intervention by telephone, while 10 interventions were web-based. Of the web-based interventions, five had a blended approach, such as website and email support, or website and social media platforms. One study used an app-based intervention. Only eight studies targeted employees sick-listed due to common sick leave diagnoses, such as common mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders. The workplace context was the target of the eHealth intervention in seven studies, although the intervention was still delivered by health personnel such as therapists or occupational physicians. Collaboration on individual cases between the health professional, employer, and employee to facilitate work participation seemed to be rare. Four studies reported both a theoretical and an empirical base for the intervention used.

conclusionsThis review demonstrated that the use of eHealth interventions to facilitate work participation is limited, and there is a need for future studies on the use of eHealth technology for this purpose. Developing eHealth interventions specifically for populations at risk of long-term sick leave, and encouraging collaboration between all relevant stakeholders, may help improve work participation.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMusculoskeletal DiseasesTelemedicineHumansSick LeaveWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID34224522
PMCPMC8528131
OpenAlexW3178849773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.