Effect of Cognitive Behavioural Stress Management on Return-to-Work Amongst Sick-Listed Employees.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Charlotte Brøgger Bond, Morten Vejs Willert, Daniel Navy Ditlevsen, Louise Fleng Sandal, Lars Brandt
{"title":"Effect of Cognitive Behavioural Stress Management on Return-to-Work Amongst Sick-Listed Employees.","authors":"Charlotte Brøgger Bond, Morten Vejs Willert, Daniel Navy Ditlevsen, Louise Fleng Sandal, Lars Brandt","doi":"10.1007/s10926-025-10306-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The literature provides contradictory information on the effect of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) interventions on return to work (RTW) for patients on sick leave due to work-related stress.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We compared the cumulative number of sick leave weeks between a cohort of patients who received a CBT-based stress management intervention in the period 2011-2018 (N = 331) and a cohort of patients from 2010 to 2011 (N = 221) who did not receive the intervention. We also compared time until sustainable RTW (3 consecutive months of no sick registrations) between the cohorts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Registry data on sickness absence were obtained from the national DREAM register (Danish Public Transfer Payments Database). The cumulative time of registered sick leave in DREAM until first sustainable period of RTW was visualized using Kaplan-Meier plots. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the effectiveness of the intervention relative to the comparison cohort and was reported as hazard rate ratio.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intervention cohort's cumulated number of weeks in DREAM across the total period from 0 to 36 months (median 29 range 26-32) was lower than that of the comparison cohort (median 40 range 34-52), (P = 0.005), corresponding to a 14% (95% CI 0.04-0.24) reduction. For RTW, a hazard ratio rate of 1.25 (95% CI 1.02-1.54) favouring the intervention group was found (P = 0.034).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CBT stress management intervention significantly reduced the amount of sick leave and reduced the time until sustainable RTW for the intervention cohort compared to the comparison cohort.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-025-10306-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The literature provides contradictory information on the effect of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) interventions on return to work (RTW) for patients on sick leave due to work-related stress.

Aim: We compared the cumulative number of sick leave weeks between a cohort of patients who received a CBT-based stress management intervention in the period 2011-2018 (N = 331) and a cohort of patients from 2010 to 2011 (N = 221) who did not receive the intervention. We also compared time until sustainable RTW (3 consecutive months of no sick registrations) between the cohorts.

Methods: Registry data on sickness absence were obtained from the national DREAM register (Danish Public Transfer Payments Database). The cumulative time of registered sick leave in DREAM until first sustainable period of RTW was visualized using Kaplan-Meier plots. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the effectiveness of the intervention relative to the comparison cohort and was reported as hazard rate ratio.

Results: The intervention cohort's cumulated number of weeks in DREAM across the total period from 0 to 36 months (median 29 range 26-32) was lower than that of the comparison cohort (median 40 range 34-52), (P = 0.005), corresponding to a 14% (95% CI 0.04-0.24) reduction. For RTW, a hazard ratio rate of 1.25 (95% CI 1.02-1.54) favouring the intervention group was found (P = 0.034).

Conclusion: The CBT stress management intervention significantly reduced the amount of sick leave and reduced the time until sustainable RTW for the intervention cohort compared to the comparison cohort.

认知行为压力管理对病岗员工复工的影响。
背景:关于认知行为疗法(CBT)干预对因工作压力而请病假的患者重返工作(RTW)的影响,文献提供了相互矛盾的信息。目的:我们比较了2011-2018年期间接受基于cbt的压力管理干预的患者队列(N = 331)和2010 - 2011年未接受干预的患者队列(N = 221)的累计病假周数。我们还比较了两组之间持续RTW(连续3个月无生病登记)的时间。方法:从国家DREAM登记册(丹麦公共转移支付数据库)中获得病假登记数据。使用Kaplan-Meier图可视化DREAM中注册病假至RTW第一个可持续期的累积时间。采用Cox比例风险模型比较干预措施相对于对照队列的有效性,并以风险率比报告。结果:干预组在0 - 36个月期间(中位数29为26-32)的DREAM累计周数低于对照组(中位数40为34-52)(P = 0.005),减少了14% (95% CI 0.04-0.24)。对于RTW,干预组的风险比为1.25 (95% CI 1.02-1.54) (P = 0.034)。结论:与对照组相比,CBT压力管理干预显著减少了干预组的病假数量和持续复职时间。
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
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law.  A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信