Cited by 71Medical Practices and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-beingMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Improved work ability and return to work following vocational multidisciplinary rehabilitation of subjects on long-term sick leave

Open access
Braathen, TN, Veiersted, KB, Heggenes, J·2007·Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a vocational multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for patients on long-term sick leave with respect to their work ability and return to work. METHODS: A multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme was administered to an intervention group of 183 patients on long-term sick leave (mean 12.2 months). Effects of the treatment were compared with a control group (n = 96) recruited from the national sickness insurance record of patients on sick leave of 6-12 months duration (mean 11.5 months). Perceived work ability, return to work, background factors and psychosocial aspects of work were assessed on the basis of questionnaires at baseline and after 4 months. RESULTS: Perceived work ability of the intervention group improved significantly after 4 months compared with the control group (p < 0.01). In the intervention group, 80% had returned to work compared with 66% in the control group (p = 0.06). Return to work after 4 months was predicted by good work ability at baseline, improved work motivation, improved work ability at follow-up and increased rumours of change in the workplace (R2 26.1-38.6%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme significantly improved perceived work ability compared with treatment as usual.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2340/16501977-0081

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Braathen, T., Veiersted, K., & Heggenes, J.
Venue
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Published
2007
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
493-499
ISSN
0001-5555 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169946893
Cited by
71
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
FWCI
9.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Dermato Venereologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
vocational rehabilitation, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, long-term sick leave, return to work, work ability, employee motivation, psychosocial aspects of work, workplace change, sickness insurance
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Norway, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rehabilitation Centers, Rehabilitation, Vocational, Social Support, Socioeconomic Factors, Time Factors, Work Capacity Evaluation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Sick Leave

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