Trial reportScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2023
Integrated mental healthcare and vocational rehabilitation for people on sick leave with stress-related disorders: 24-month follow-up of the randomized IBBIS trial.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of adding early cooperation and a work-place dialogue meeting to primary care management for sick-listed patients with stress-related disorders: CO-WORK-CARE-Stress - a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Trial
- A Web-Based Self-Management Intervention for Return-to-Work Among Persons With Common Mental Disorders on Sick Leave: Case Study of mWorks.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- The reliability and validity of a novel clinical tool for distributing rehabilitation patients: a multicenter cross-sectional study in China.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Danish Ibbis Trials for Sickness Absentees with Common Mental Disorders: A Phase 4 Prospective Study Comparing Randomized Trial and Real-World Data.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIntegrating vocational rehabilitation and mental healthcare has shown effects on vocational outcomes during sick leave with common mental disorders. In a previous paper, we showed that a Danish integrated healthcare and vocational rehabilitation intervention (INT) had a surprisingly negative impact on vocational outcomes compared to service as usual (SAU) at 6- and 12-month follow-up. That was also the case with a mental healthcare intervention (MHC) tested in the same study. This article reports the 24-month follow-up results of that same study.
methodA randomized, parallel-group, three-arm, multi-centre superiority trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of INT and MHC compared to SAU.
resultsIn total, 631 persons were randomized. Contrary to our hypothesis, SAU showed faster return to work than both INT [hazard rate (HR) 1.39, P=0.0027] and MHC (HR 1.30, P=0.013) at 24-month follow-up. Overall, no differences were observed regarding mental health and functional level. Compared to SAU, we observed some health benefits of MHC, but not INT, at 6-month follow-up but not thereafter, and lower rates of employment at all follow-ups. Since implementation problems might explain the results of INT, we cannot conclude that INT is no better that SAU. The MHC intervention was implemented with good fidelity and did not improve return to work.
conclusionThis trial does not support the hypothesis that INT lead to faster return to work. However, implementation failure may explain the negative results.
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.