Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39071746›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care

The Danish Ibbis Trials for Sickness Absentees with Common Mental Disorders: A Phase 4 Prospective Study Comparing Randomized Trial and Real-World Data.

Andreas Hoff, Anders Bo Bojesen, Lene Falgaard Eplov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Andreas HoffCopenhagen Research Unit for Recovery, Mental Health Services, Capital Region Denmark, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hans Bogbinders Allé3, 3. sal, 2300 København S, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9901-2674
Anders Bo BojesenCopenhagen Research Unit for Recovery, Mental Health Services, Capital Region Denmark, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hans Bogbinders Allé3, 3. sal, 2300 København S, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5321-6855
Lene Falgaard EplovCopenhagen Research Unit for Recovery, Mental Health Services, Capital Region Denmark, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hans Bogbinders Allé3, 3. sal, 2300 København S, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9334-8692

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In two randomized controlled trials (RCT) we tested the efficacy of a novel integrated vocational rehabilitation and mental healthcare intervention, coined INT, for sickness absentees with common mental disorders. The aim was to improve vocational outcomes compared to Service As Usual (SAU). Contrary to expectations, the delivered intervention caused worse outcomes within some diagnostic groups and some benefits in others. In this phase 4 study, we examined the effectiveness of the intervention in real-world practice. Method: In this prospective intervention study, we allocated adult sickness absentees with either depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorder to receive INT in a real-world setting in a Danish Municipality. We compared the vocational outcomes of this group to a matched group who received INT as a part of the RCTs, after randomization to the intervention group herein. Primary outcome was return to work at any point within 12 months. Results: In the real-world group, 151 participants received INT during 2019. From the randomized trials, 302 matched participants who received INT between 2016-2018 were included. On the primary outcome - return to work within 12 months - the real-word group fared worse (48.3 vs 64.6 %, OR 0.54 [95%CI: 0.37-0.79], p = 0.001). Across most other vocational outcomes, a similar pattern of statistically significant poorer outcomes in the real-world group was observed: Lower number of weeks in work and lower proportion in work at 12 months (42.3% vs. 58.3% (p = 0.002)). Discussion: The real-word group showed significantly worse vocational outcomes. Like in many other studies of complex interventions, implementation was difficult in the original randomized trials and perhaps even more difficult in the less structured real-world setting. Since the intervention was less effective for some groups compared to SAU in the original trial, this negative effect may be even more pronounced in a real-world setting.

Indexed as

anxietycommon mental disordersdepressionintegrated carevocational rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID39071746
PMCPMC11276403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.