Trial reportWork (Reading, Mass.)2021
Does a brief work-stress intervention prevent sick-leave during the following 24 months? A randomized controlled trial in Swedish primary care.
Trial report 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Work-related stress, reason for consultation and diagnosis-specific sick leave: How do they add up?PloS one · 2023Observational
- Does the Number of Reasons for Seeking Care and Self-Rated Health Predict Sick Leave during the Following 12 Months? A Prospective, Longitudinal Study in Swedish Primary Health Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWork-related stress (WRS) presents a risk for sick leave. However, effective methods to identify people at risk for sick leave due to WRS at an early stage are lacking in primary health care.
objectiveTo evaluate whether a systematic early identification of WRS can prevent sick leave over 24 months after the intervention.
methodsStudy participants (n = 132 intervention; n = 139 control) were employed, non-sick-listed persons seeking care at primary health care centres. The intervention included early identification of WRS by a validated instrument, general practitioner (GP) awareness supported by a brief training session, patients' self-reflection by instrument completion, GP giving the patient feedback at consultation and GP identifying preventive measures. The control group received treatment as usual. Outcome data were retrieved from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency.
resultsThe intervention group had less registered median sick leave days (n = 56) than the control group (n = 65) but the difference was not statistically significant.
conclusionsThe brief intervention was not proven effective in preventing sick leave in the following 24 months compared to treatment as usual. Further research on how to identify, advice and treat those at high risk for sick leave in primary health care is needed.
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.