Cochrane · systematic review · CD011618
Return‐to‐work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave
Vogel, N, Schandelmaier, S, Zumbrunn, T, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
WorkAMSTAR 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
12
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 8.3%Low 8 · 66.7%Moderate 3 · 25%High 0 · 0%
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
Return to work coordination programmes compared to usual practice for improving return to work in workers on sick leave
Population: workers on sick leave
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to return to work ‐ short‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | HR 1.32 [0.93, 1.88] | 2 studies · 161 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Time to return to work ‐ long‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | HR 1.25 [0.95, 1.66] | 6 studies · 1935 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Time to return to work ‐ very long‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | HR 0.93 [0.74, 1.17] | 2 studies · 474 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cumulative sickness absence in work days ‐ short‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 113 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Cumulative sickness absence in work days ‐ long‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 1339 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Cumulative sickness absence in work days ‐ very long‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 8052 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion at work at end of the Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | RR 1.06 [0.86, 1.3] | 5 studies · 1388 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion at work at end of the Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.15] | 5 studies · 3061 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion at work at end of the Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | RR 0.94 [0.82, 1.07] | 2 studies · 815 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ short‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | RR 0.87 [0.63, 1.19] | 4 studies · 675 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ long‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | RR 1.03 [0.97, 1.09] | 8 studies · 3822 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ very long‐term Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice | RR 0.95 [0.88, 1.02] | 3 studies · 938 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |