Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41804226›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026

The work and vocational advice intervention for adults in full or part-time employment: a synopsis of the WAVE feasibility study and RCT.

Gwenllian Wynne-Jones, Martyn Lewis, Gail Sowden, Ira Madan, Karen Walker-Bone, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Kieran Bromley, Sue Jowett, Vaughan Parsons, Gemma Mansell and 9 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

19 authors.

Gwenllian Wynne-JonesSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0283-6632
Martyn LewisSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5290-7833
Gail SowdenMersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Whiston Hospital, Prescot, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0765-0551
Ira MadanOccupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Service, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK and School of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2200-7329
Karen Walker-BoneMonash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5992-1459
Carolyn A Chew-GrahamSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9722-9981
Kieran BromleySchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4129-2519
Sue JowettHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8936-3745
Vaughan ParsonsOccupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Service, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK and School of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0523-3770
Gemma MansellSchool of Psychology, College of Health and Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5479-2678
Kendra CookeKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Sarah A LawtonKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8909-2057
Benjamin SaundersSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0856-1596
Rosie HarrisonSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2292-5947
Simon WathallKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7107-5785
John PembertonPatient and Public Involvement and Engagement Team Member, Keele University, Keele.
Julia HammondMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Cyrus CooperMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3510-0709
Nadine E FosterSTARS Education and Research Alliance, Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service (STARS), The University of Queensland and Metro North Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4429-9756

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accessible occupational health advice is only available to approximately half the United Kingdom population. With rising sickness absence new models for delivering occupational health are required to support employees with health conditions to manage their condition at work. Aim: To determine, in patients consulting in general practice who receive a fit note, whether the addition of a vocational advice intervention to usual primary care leads to fewer days lost from work, and whether vocational advice is cost-effective. Design: Intervention development: Training development using mixed methods and the theoretical framework the Behaviour Change Wheel. Feasibility study: Mixed methods, single-arm feasibility study, with stop/go criteria to assist decision making about progression to full trial. Trial: Multi-centre, two-parallel arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial with health economic analysis and nested qualitative study. Setting: General practices in three geographic areas in England: West Midlands, South London and Wessex. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years, currently in paid employment (full or part-time), current absence from work of at least 2 weeks but not more than 6 consecutive months, with a fit note for any health condition. Interventions: Vocational advice delivered by trained vocational support workers plus usual primary care (intervention arm), compared to usual primary care alone (control arm). Main outcome measures: The outcome of intervention development was a vocational advice intervention and training package. Feasibility study outcomes were ability to recruit and acceptability of the vocational advice intervention to participants. The trial primary outcome was number of days absent from work over 6 months. Results: A vocational advice intervention and training package designed for delivery in primary care using case management and stepped care to support patients absent from work for 2 weeks to 6 months. The feasibility study recruited 19 participants demonstrating the vocational advice intervention could be delivered and was acceptable to participants. Recommendations around automated recruitment and data collection were made which were implemented in the trial. The randomised controlled trial sample size was 720; 130 participants were recruited (66 intervention/64 control) before closing early due to recruitment difficulties. There was no statistically significant difference in days absent over 6 months with a mean of 37 (standard deviation 48) days absence (vocational advice intervention) compared to a mean of 42 (standard deviation 57) days absence (usual primary care alone) and an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.913 (80% confidence interval 0.653 to 1.276). Health economic analysis found that productivity losses were also lower in the intervention arm at £5513.84 (standard deviation £7101.43) compared to the control arm at £6146.21 (standard deviation 8431.88). At 6 weeks, the intervention arm had lower mean absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss and activity impairment on the work productivity activity impairment scale than the control arm; again this was not significant. Conclusions and future work: This study resulted in a vocational advice intervention suitable for all health conditions and a training package to support delivery of the intervention. In primary care, delivery was feasible and acceptable to patients. Exploratory analysis indicated some signals of benefit in terms of days absent from work, costs and most other secondary outcome measures. Future work should focus on the delivery of a fully powered randomised controlled trial evaluating an early vocational advice intervention compared to usual primary care to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this approach. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/94/49.

Indexed as

EmploymentOccupational HealthVocational GuidanceAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareSick LeaveUnited KingdomFEASIBILITY STUDYPRIMARY CARERANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALVOCATIONAL ADVICE

Identifiers

PMID41804226
PMCPMC12989918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.