4.4 Review

Workplace involvement improves return to work rates among employees with back pain on long-term sick leave: a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 32, 期 8, 页码 607-621

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638280903186301

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Centre for Public Health Excellence (CPHE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. Long-term sickness absence among workers is a major problem in industrialised countries. The aim of the review is to determine whether interventions involving the workplace are more effective and cost-effective at helping employees on sick leave return to work than those that do not involve the workplace at all. Methods. A systematic review of controlled intervention studies and economic evaluations. Sixteen electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched, and reference and citation tracking was performed on included publications. A narrative synthesis was performed. Results. Ten articles were found reporting nine trials from Europe and Canada, and four articles were found evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions. The population in eight trials suffered from back pain and related musculoskeletal conditions. Interventions involving employees, health practitioners and employers working together, to implement work modifications for the absentee, were more consistently effective than other interventions. Early intervention was also found to be effective. The majority of trials were of good or moderate quality. Economic evaluations indicated that interventions with a workplace component are likely to be more cost effective than those without. Conclusion. Stakeholder participation and work modification are more effective and cost effective at returning to work adults with musculoskeletal conditions than other workplace-linked interventions, including exercise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据