ArticlePloS one2025
The effect of interdisciplinary treatment on sickness absence and disability pension among chronic pain patients on partial disability pension.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to enhance work participation in people with chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis including analysis of complex psychological intervention components.British journal of health psychology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies evaluating the effects of interdisciplinary treatment (IDT) on sickness absence and disability pension (SA/DP) have yielded contradictory findings. Evidence indicates that positive treatment effects are restricted to patients with a poor SA/DP prognosis. This study therefore analyzed the effect of IDT in working age patients on partial disability pension, which is a group with a particularly poor prognosis. With data from 479 patients on partial disability pension, this register-based cohort study compared the effects of IDT to those of unspecified interventions. We considered two response variables: total net SA/DP days across the span of three years from the first visit to a Swedish specialist pain clinic, and the risk of having the maximum possible 1096 SA/DP days over the same period. Our results showed that both the total net SA/DP days (mean difference: 11; 95% confidence interval: -30 to 51) and the risk of 1096 SA/DP days (risk ratio: 1.0; 95% confidence interval: 0.6 to 1.4) were similar irrespective of intervention type. Under our theoretical model, we thereby found no support in favor of IDT over less intensive interventions in working age patients with partial DP. This raises questions about the specific criteria under which IDT proves effective.
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.