Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice: Proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ short‐term
It is very uncertain whether return to work coordination programmes changes proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ short‐term compared with usual practice (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice Proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ short‐term · workers on sick leave It is very uncertain whether return to work coordination programmes changes proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ short‐term compared with usual practice (very low certainty). Return‐to‐work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.87 [0.63, 1.19] | 4 studies · 675 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Return‐to‐work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.