Effectiveness of 'motivational interviewing' on sick leave: a randomized controlled trial in a social insurance setting.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Lene Aasdahl, Martin Inge Standal, Roger Hagen, Marit Solbjør, Gunnhild Bagøien, Heidi Fossen, Vegard Stolsmo Foldal, Johan Håkon Bjørngaard, Tarjei Rysstad, Margreth Grotle, Roar Johnsen, Egil A Fors
{"title":"Effectiveness of 'motivational interviewing' on sick leave: a randomized controlled trial in a social insurance setting.","authors":"Lene Aasdahl, Martin Inge Standal, Roger Hagen, Marit Solbjør, Gunnhild Bagøien, Heidi Fossen, Vegard Stolsmo Foldal, Johan Håkon Bjørngaard, Tarjei Rysstad, Margreth Grotle, Roar Johnsen, Egil A Fors","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) - a counselling approach offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration (NAV) - on return to work (RTW) for individuals sick-listed for ≥8 weeks due to any diagnoses. MI was compared to usual case management and an active control during 12 months of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomized clinical trial with three parallel arms, participants were randomized to MI (N=257), usual case management (N=266), or an active control group (N=252). MI consisted of two MI sessions while the active control involved two sessions without MI, both were offered in addition to usual case management. The primary outcome was number of sickness absence days based on registry data. Secondary outcomes included time to sustainable RTW, defined as four consecutive weeks without medical benefits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median number of sickness absence days for the MI group was 73 days [interquartile range (IQR) 31-147], 76 days (35-134) for usual care, and 75 days (34-155) for active control. In total 89%, 88% and 86% of the participants, respectively, achieved sustainable RTW. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for time to sustainable RTW was 1.12 (95% CI 0.90-1.40) for MI compared to usual case management and HR 1.16 (95% CI 0.93-1.44) compared to the active control.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study did not provide evidence that MI offered by NAV caseworkers to sick-listed individuals was more effective on RTW than usual case management or an active control. Providing MI in this context could be challenging as only half of the MI group received the intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":" ","pages":"477-486"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10834143/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4117","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) - a counselling approach offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration (NAV) - on return to work (RTW) for individuals sick-listed for ≥8 weeks due to any diagnoses. MI was compared to usual case management and an active control during 12 months of follow-up.

Methods: In a randomized clinical trial with three parallel arms, participants were randomized to MI (N=257), usual case management (N=266), or an active control group (N=252). MI consisted of two MI sessions while the active control involved two sessions without MI, both were offered in addition to usual case management. The primary outcome was number of sickness absence days based on registry data. Secondary outcomes included time to sustainable RTW, defined as four consecutive weeks without medical benefits.

Results: The median number of sickness absence days for the MI group was 73 days [interquartile range (IQR) 31-147], 76 days (35-134) for usual care, and 75 days (34-155) for active control. In total 89%, 88% and 86% of the participants, respectively, achieved sustainable RTW. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for time to sustainable RTW was 1.12 (95% CI 0.90-1.40) for MI compared to usual case management and HR 1.16 (95% CI 0.93-1.44) compared to the active control.

Conclusions: This study did not provide evidence that MI offered by NAV caseworkers to sick-listed individuals was more effective on RTW than usual case management or an active control. Providing MI in this context could be challenging as only half of the MI group received the intervention.

病假“动机访谈”的有效性:一项在社会保险环境中的随机对照试验。
目的:本研究旨在评估动机访谈(MI)——挪威劳工和福利管理局(NAV)个案工作者提供的一种咨询方法——对因任何诊断而被列为患病≥8周的个人在返回工作岗位(RTW)时的有效性。在12个月的随访中,将MI与常规病例管理和主动对照进行比较。方法:在一项具有三个平行组的随机临床试验中,参与者被随机分为MI(N=257)、常规病例管理(N=266)或主动对照组(N=252)。MI包括两次MI治疗,而主动对照包括两次没有MI的治疗,这两次治疗都是在常规病例管理之外提供的。主要结果是基于登记数据的病假天数。次要结果包括达到可持续RTW的时间,定义为连续四周没有医疗益处。结果:MI组的平均病假天数为73天[四分位间距(IQR)31-147],常规护理为76天(35-134),主动对照为75天(34-155)。总的来说,分别有89%、88%和86%的参与者实现了可持续的RTW。与常规病例管理相比,MI持续RTW时间的调整后危险比(HR)为1.12(95%CI 0.90-1.40),与主动对照相比,HR为1.16(95%CI 0.93-1.44)。结论:本研究没有提供证据表明NAV个案工作者向患病患者提供的MI在RTW方面比常规病例管理或主动对照更有效。在这种情况下提供MI可能具有挑战性,因为只有一半的MI组接受了干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
9.50%
发文量
65
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of original research articles, systematic reviews, and other information of high interest. Areas of interest include occupational and environmental epidemiology, occupational and environmental medicine, psychosocial factors at work, physical work load, physical activity work-related mental and musculoskeletal problems, aging, work ability and return to work, working hours and health, occupational hygiene and toxicology, work safety and injury epidemiology as well as occupational health services. In addition to observational studies, quasi-experimental and intervention studies are welcome as well as methodological papers, occupational cohort profiles, and studies associated with economic evaluation. The Journal also publishes short communications, case reports, commentaries, discussion papers, clinical questions, consensus reports, meeting reports, other reports, book reviews, news, and announcements (jobs, courses, events etc).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信