ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Work Ability during the Return to Work Process: Results from a Mixed Methods Follow-Up Study Among Employees with Common Mental Disorders.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. 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.
- Needed and Received Work Accommodations During Return to Work Among Employees with Common Mental Disorders and Relationships with Depressive Symptoms and Work Ability.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Determinants of Sustainable Return to Work After Burnout or Depression: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA main goal during the return to work (RTW) process after a long-term sickness absence due to common mental disorders (CMDs), is to restore and maintain employees' work ability to enable their sustained work participation. This study jointly examined employees' work ability ratings and experiences during their RTW process with CMDs.
methodsIn a mixed methods follow-up study of N = 286 participants, work ability was quantitatively assessed with the Work Ability Score (WAS, range 0-10) at baseline (week before clinical discharge) and after 6, 12, 18, and 30 months. In a sub-sample, the qualitative work ability experiences of N = 32 participants were analysed at 6 and 12 months, and were jointly evaluated with the quantitative data.
resultsThe mean WAS increased during the first 18 months of follow-up. Three groups of qualitative work ability experiences emerged: Employees with (1) poor work ability (WAS 0-3), who did not RTW yet and described great difficulties in coping with everyday life, (2) moderate work ability (WAS 4-6), who mainly did RTW, but still showed a certain level of fragility, and (3) good to very good work ability (WAS 7-10), who mainly returned to work and reported many individual and work accommodations to maintain their work ability.
conclusionThe present study provides new insights into different aspects of work ability experiences, especially during the later RTW phases, where restoring and maintaining work ability is essential for a sustained work participation. This knowledge may help RTW stakeholders to better tailor support during the RTW process.
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.