Trial reportScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2023
Effectiveness of 'motivational interviewing' on sick leave: a randomized controlled trial in a social insurance setting.
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.
- Effectiveness of two vocational interventions on sickness absence and costs for people with musculoskeletal disorders: 12 months results from the MI-NAV multi-arm randomized trial.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Trial
- From Arrow to evidence: health economics and occupational health in the Nordic context.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Article
- Self-Determination Theory in Return to Work Interventions: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- Getting an outsider's perspective - sick-listed workers' experiences with early follow-up sessions in the return to work process: a qualitative interview study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) - a counselling approach offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration (NAV) - on return to work (RTW) for individuals sick-listed for ≥8 weeks due to any diagnoses. MI was compared to usual case management and an active control during 12 months of follow-up.
methodsIn a randomized clinical trial with three parallel arms, participants were randomized to MI (N=257), usual case management (N=266), or an active control group (N=252). MI consisted of two MI sessions while the active control involved two sessions without MI, both were offered in addition to usual case management. The primary outcome was number of sickness absence days based on registry data. Secondary outcomes included time to sustainable RTW, defined as four consecutive weeks without medical benefits.
resultsThe median number of sickness absence days for the MI group was 73 days [interquartile range (IQR) 31-147], 76 days (35-134) for usual care, and 75 days (34-155) for active control. In total 89%, 88% and 86% of the participants, respectively, achieved sustainable RTW. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for time to sustainable RTW was 1.12 (95% CI 0.90-1.40) for MI compared to usual case management and HR 1.16 (95% CI 0.93-1.44) compared to the active control.
conclusionsThis study did not provide evidence that MI offered by NAV caseworkers to sick-listed individuals was more effective on RTW than usual case management or an active control. Providing MI in this context could be challenging as only half of the MI group received the intervention.
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.