Cited by 16Workplace Health and Well-beingMedical Practices and RehabilitationMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of a randomized controlled intervention trial on return to work and health care utilization after long-term sickness absence

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the RCT study was to investigate if the effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on return to work (RTW) and health care utilization differed by participants' self-reported health status at baseline, defined by a) level of somatic symptoms, b) health anxiety and c) self-reported general health. METHODS: A total of 443 individuals were randomized to the intervention (n = 301) or the control group (n = 142) and responded to a questionnaire measuring health status at baseline. Participants were followed in registries measuring RTW and health care utilization. Relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were used as measures of associations. Results were adjusted for gender, age, educational level, work ability and previous sick leave. RESULTS: Among all responders we found no effect of the intervention on RTW. Among participants with low health anxiety, the one-year probability of RTW was lower in the intervention than in the control group (RR = 0.79 95 % CI 0.68-0.93), but for those with high health anxiety there was no difference between the groups (RR = 1.15 95 % CI 0.84-1.57). Neither general health nor somatic symptoms modified the effect of the intervention on RTW. The intervention had no effect on health care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary intervention did not facilitate RTW or decrease health care utilization compared to ordinary case management in subgroups with multiple somatic symptoms, health anxiety or low self-rated health. However, the intervention resulted in a reduced chance of RTW among participants with low health anxiety levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN43004323 , and ISRCTN51445682.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-016-3812-4

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Aronsson G, Lundberg U. Interventions for return to work after sickness absence - a systematic review of meta-analyses of musculoskeletal and mental disorders. [Interventioner för återgång i arbete vid sjukskrivning. En systematisk kunskapsöversikt av metaanalyser med inriktning på muskuloskeletala och psykiska besvär]. Work and Health [Arbete och Hälsa]. University of Gothenburg. 2015;49(2). (ISBN: 978-91-85971-54-1; URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/39858 ).
  2. Christensen KS, Bech P, Fink P. Measuring Mental Health by Questionnaires in Primary Care -Unidimensionality, Responsiveness and Compliance. European psychiatrc review. 2010;8:12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Momsen, A.-M. H., Stapelfeldt, C. M., Nielsen, C. V., Nielsen, M. B. D., Aust, B., Rugulies, R., & Jensen, C.
Affiliations
  • Marselisborgcentret (DK)
  • Central Denmark Region (DK)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • National Research Centre for the Working Environment (DK)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Momsen, Anne-Mette H.
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2016-11-09
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
1149-1149
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2554243705
Cited by
16
References
39
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
The Danish foundation TrygFonden (j.nr. FL-54)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
return to work, health care utilization, long-term sickness absence, multidisciplinary intervention, health anxiety, somatic symptoms, self-rated health, case management
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Behavior Therapy, Denmark, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Diseases, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Registries, Risk, Work Capacity Evaluation, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Sick Leave, Diagnostic Self Evaluation, Return to Work

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