ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Inpatient or Outpatient Occupational Rehabilitation - What Works Best for Whom? A Non-randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
- Associations between work ability and work participation after rehabilitation: a longitudinal multicentre cohort study.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Self-rated work ability predicts return to work after occupational rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study compared return-to-work (RTW) outcomes among Norwegian patients with musculoskeletal or common mental disorders participating in a 4-week inpatient or 3-month outpatient occupational rehabilitation program, examining associations between program type, pre-intervention sick-leave duration, and RTW.
methodsAn observational cohort (n = 857) was categorized into five pre-intervention benefit groups, including Group 1 (partial benefits for ≥ 6 weeks) and Group 2 (90-100% benefits for 6 weeks through 5 months). Primary outcome was time to stable RTW (first month without sickness benefits); secondary outcome was cumulative work participation over 24 months.
resultsRTW hazard varied by group and time. During the first 3 months, outpatients in Group 1 had a threefold higher hazard of stable RTW than inpatients (HR = 3.61, p = .03). Between 3 and 10 months, the pattern reversed, favoring inpatients (outpatient HR = 0.68, p = .01). After 10 months, outpatients again had higher RTW hazards, significant only in Group 1. In Group 2, no outpatients achieved RTW during the first 3 months; furthermore, between 3 and 10 months, inpatients had a significantly higher RTW hazard (outpatient HR = 0.38, p = .02). Median months worked over 24 months was 18.1 for outpatients vs. 12.8 for inpatients in Group 1 (p = .08), and 0.6 vs. 5.3 in Group 2 (p = .04).
conclusionPre-intervention sick-leave duration strongly influences RTW. Program effectiveness is time- and subgroup dependent. Patients with remaining work attachment (partial benefits) may benefit more from outpatient care, while those on full-time benefits for moderate durations benefit more from intensive inpatient programs, suggesting a need for stratified allocation.
trial registrationCurrent controlled trials https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12033424 , 15.10.2014, retrospectively registered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41543672What 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.