Cited by 280Workplace Health and Well-beingMedical Practices and RehabilitationPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Return to work: A comparison of two cognitive behavioural interventions in cases of work-related psychological complaints among the self-employed

Blonk, Roland W. B., Brenninkmeijer, Veerle, Lagerveld, Suzanne E., Houtman, Irene L. D.·2006·Work & Stress

Abstract

We investigated the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and a combined intervention of workplace- and individual-focused techniques among self-employed people on sick leave owing to work-related psychological complaints (such as anxiety, depression, and burnout). Both interventions were based on CBT; however, one was conducted by psychotherapists and involved extensive CBT, while the other was delivered by “labour experts” and consisted of a brief CBT-derived intervention combined with both individual-focused and workplace interventions. One hundred and twenty-two self-employed people who had applied for sickness benefit from an insurance company enrolled in a randomized controlled design. These individuals were assessed before the intervention and then at 4 months and 10 months after the onset of the intervention. The outcome was assessed based on duration of sick leave until partial and full return to work and on psychological complaints. Significant effects on partial and full return were found in favour of the combined intervention: partial return occurred 17 and 30 days earlier in this group than in the CBT group and the control group, respectively. For full return to work, the difference was approximately 200 days. A decrease in psychological complaints was present in each condition but we found no significant interaction effects. The results suggest that work resumption should be addressed earlier in individuals receiving CBT. This insight is of value for the (scarce) literature concerning interventions for individuals who are on sick leave owing to work-related psychological complaints.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02678370600856615

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blonk, R. W. B., Brenninkmeijer, V., Lagerveld, S. E., & Houtman, I. L. D.
Affiliations
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Blonk, Roland W. B.
Venue
Work & Stress
Published
2006-04
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
129-144
ISSN
  • 0267-8373 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5335
OpenAlex
W2139234433
Cited by
280
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 25
FWCI
22.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Work & Stress (publishedVersion)
  • TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
return to work, cognitive behavioral therapy, sick leave, self-employed workers, burnout, anxiety, depression, workplace interventions, sickness benefits, early intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review