SynthesisBMC psychology2026
Work-focused cognitive behavioural therapy for common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommon mental disorders (CMDs) are a major cause of sickness absence and work disability. Although cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) effectively reduces symptoms, effects on return-to-work (RTW) outcomes are limited. Work-focused CBT (W-CBT) integrates RTW processes into treatment, but the evidence base remains heterogeneous with unresolved methodological challenges. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of W-CBT on psychiatric and work-related outcomes, examined moderators of treatment effects, assessed methodological rigour, and identified common intervention components, with particular attention to how RTW outcomes are analyzed.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to December 2025. Randomized and non-randomized studies evaluating CBT with an integrated work focus among working-age adults on sickness absence due to CMDs were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using multilevel models with cluster-robust standard errors to address outcome dependency. Moderator analyses examined treatment content, number of sessions, and study characteristics. RTW outcomes were evaluated regarding their statistical properties, summary measures, and analytic methods used in primary studies. Risk-of-bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 and ROBINS-I.
resultsTwenty-four studies comprising 26 W-CBT treatment conditions (n = 3,279 participants) were included. Large within-group improvements in psychiatric symptoms were observed and maintained at follow-up, while between-group effects were statistically significant but small. At post-treatment, 56% of participants had returned to work, increasing to 87% at follow-up, with a higher likelihood of full RTW in W-CBT compared with controls. CBT content, stronger work focus, and higher treatment dose were associated with larger symptom improvements. However, RTW outcomes showed substantial heterogeneity. Many studies used analytic approaches assuming normally distributed data for outcomes that were bounded, skewed, or zero-inflated, or reported hazard ratios with limited comparability, constraining valid synthesis.
conclusionsW-CBT is associated with meaningful symptom improvement and increased likelihood of RTW. However, misalignment between RTW outcome properties and analytic methods represents a major threat to validity. Future research requires improved outcome definitions, appropriate statistical modeling, and greater methodological consistency.
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.