Cochrane · systematic review · CD006955

Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave

van Vilsteren, M, van Oostrom, SH, de Vet, HCW, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library

Work2 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed

SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.

Questions

current version

GRADE rated

No studies

Included studies

No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 28.6%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 3 · 42.9%High 2 · 28.6%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Current version only

Workplace interventions compared to Usual care for Workers on sick leave

Population: Workers on sick leave

CD006955.PUB3 (current) · 7 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Time until first RTW Risk at return to work Workplace interventions vs Usual care	HR 1.55 [1.2, 2.01]	5 studies · 608 participants	Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias
Time until lasting RTW Risk at return to work Workplace interventions vs Usual care	HR 1.07 [0.72, 1.57]	6 studies · 635 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency
Cumulative duration of sickness absence Days. Scale from: 0 to 365. Scale from: 0 to 365. Workplace interventions vs Usual care	no estimate extracted	8 studies · 1164 participants	High
Recurrences Risk at recurrences of sick leave Workplace interventions vs Usual care	HR 0.42 [0.21, 0.82]	1 study · 99 participants	Moderate Downgraded: imprecision
Functional status Roland disability questionnaire. outcome was measured on different scales in different studies. Scale from: 0 to 24. Workplace interventions vs Usual care	no estimate extracted	6 studies · 628 participants	Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency
Depression Depression Anxiety Stress scale, and PHQ‐9 depression scale Workplace interventions vs Usual care	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 133 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias
Pain Visual Analogue Scale Workplace interventions vs Usual care	no estimate extracted	5 studies · 531 participants	High

Comparison

Population: workers on work disability

CD006955.PUB2 · 7 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Time until lasting RTW Days until lasting RTW	HR 1.7 [1.23, 2.35]	1 study · 196 participants	Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness
Time until first RTW Days until first RTW	HR 1.55 [1.32, 2.16]	5 studies · 608 participants	Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness
MSD‐time until first RTW (sensitivity analysis) Days until first RTW	HR 1.44 [1.15, 1.82]	4 studies · 543 participants	Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness
Cumulative duration of sickness absence Days. Scale from: 0 to 365.	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 432 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness
Recurrences Days until recurrence	HR 0.42 [0.21, 0.82]	1 study · 99 participants	Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness
Functional status Roland Disability Questionnaire, outcome was measured on different scales in different studies. Scale from: 0 to 24.	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 317 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness
Pain Visual Analogue Scale, outcome was measured on different scales in different studies. Scale from: 0 to 10.	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 317 participants	Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness

Comparison

Population: workers on work disability

CD006955.PUB2 · 1 question

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Time until first RTW Days until first RTW	HR 2.65 [1.42, 4.95]	1 study · 71 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness