SynthesisBMC public health2025
The effectiveness of interventions in reducing economic inactivity for people with long term health conditions and disabilities in the United Kingdom: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
- Chronic health conditions and health-related economic inactivity in midlife: Evidence from the 1958 and 1970 British birth cohorts.SSM - population health · 2026Article
- Health inequalities and health-related economic inactivity: WhyPublic health in practice (Oxford, England) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEconomic inactivity, the proportion of people aged between 16 and 64 years who are not in the labour force, has increased significantly since 2020. Long-term sickness is the most common reason for economic inactivity. In the North of England, economic activity is lower, and levels of poor health in the working age population are higher, than national averages. The international literature reports many interventions designed to reduce economic inactivity including those designed to ameliorate the impact of health conditions on work participation, however, there is a need for high-quality evidence of what works for people with health conditions living in the United Kingdom (UK), and in particular for those living in areas of high deprivation such as the North of England.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review preregistered with the open science framework. We searched AMED, ASSIA, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, PsycARTICLES, Science Direct, and Scopus to November 2023. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies consisted of experimental and observational studies published or in grey literature that examined the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in reducing economic inactivity in people with health conditions living in the UK. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts followed by data extraction and synthesis using the Narrative Synthesis Framework.
resultsTwenty-seven reports detailing sixteen unique studies and eight different interventions met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. There was conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of sanctions on economic inactivity and the most robust evidence for classic individual placement and support although more evidence is needed for time-limited individual placement and support. Included studies highlighted the importance of providing specialist employment advice via skilled and experienced advisors but conflicting evidence on combining employment advice with specific psychological therapies.
conclusionsOverall, we found limited robust evidence of what works in reducing health related economic inactivity, particularly for populations experiencing elevated levels of socio-economic deprivation. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK PREREGISTRATION: https://osf.io/aucz9 .
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.