Addition of early vocational advice to usual primary care on sickness absence in employed adults: exploratory findings from the discontinued WAVE Randomised Controlled Trial.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gwenllian Wynne-Jones, Martyn Lewis, Gail Sowden, Ira Madan, Karen Walker-Bone, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Kieran Bromley, Sue Jowett, Vaughan Parsons, Gemma Mansell, Kendra Cooke, Benjamin Saunders, Rosie Harrison, Sarah A Lawton, Simon Wathall, John Pemberton, Julia Hammond, Cyrus Cooper, And Nadine E Foster
{"title":"Addition of early vocational advice to usual primary care on sickness absence in employed adults: exploratory findings from the discontinued WAVE Randomised Controlled Trial.","authors":"Gwenllian Wynne-Jones, Martyn Lewis, Gail Sowden, Ira Madan, Karen Walker-Bone, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Kieran Bromley, Sue Jowett, Vaughan Parsons, Gemma Mansell, Kendra Cooke, Benjamin Saunders, Rosie Harrison, Sarah A Lawton, Simon Wathall, John Pemberton, Julia Hammond, Cyrus Cooper, And Nadine E Foster","doi":"10.3310/SVEG8456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>To describe exploratory findings and lessons learned from the discontinued WAVE trial, which sought to determine the effectiveness and costs of adding an early vocational advice intervention to usual primary care on number of days of sickness absence over 6 months.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pragmatic, multicentre, two-parallel arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial with health economic analysis in 10 general practices in England, with nested qualitative interviews. Population: Adults with fit notes for any health condition, absent from work ≥ 2 weeks and ≤ 6 months were invited to participate. Intervention and comparator: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to usual primary care with/without vocational advice delivered by trained Vocational Support Workers. The planned sample size was 720, the first 4 months of recruitment served as an internal pilot phase and the primary outcome was self-reported days of work absence over 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and thirty participants were recruited from 7955 invitations (May 2022-May 2023) before trial closure (64 usual care, 66 usual care plus vocational advice). Exploratory analysis of 125 participants (with outcome data) indicated small additional benefits of the vocational advice intervention over usual care [mean days absence = 37.86 (standard deviation = 48.76) vs. usual care = 42.66 (standard deviation = 57.67), incidence rate ratio = 0.913, 80% confidence interval (0.653 to 1.276)]. The vocational advice intervention was delivered remotely [mean = 4.8 contacts (range 1-12)]. Partial health economic evaluation found lower work productivity losses at 6 months after vocational advice intervention (£5513.84, standard deviation = £7101.43) compared to usual care (£6146.21, standard deviation = £8431.88).</p><p><strong>Conclusions, limitations and future work: </strong>Exploratory analysis indicated a signal of effect, with differences in the number of days absent from work, costs and secondary outcomes. Key lessons learned included the need for closer working with primary care teams and more flexible recruitment methods. A future fully powered randomised controlled trial of vocational advice intervention added to usual primary care is needed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/94/49.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":" ","pages":"37-68"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12884355/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/SVEG8456","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: To describe exploratory findings and lessons learned from the discontinued WAVE trial, which sought to determine the effectiveness and costs of adding an early vocational advice intervention to usual primary care on number of days of sickness absence over 6 months.

Methods: Pragmatic, multicentre, two-parallel arm, superiority, randomised controlled trial with health economic analysis in 10 general practices in England, with nested qualitative interviews. Population: Adults with fit notes for any health condition, absent from work ≥ 2 weeks and ≤ 6 months were invited to participate. Intervention and comparator: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to usual primary care with/without vocational advice delivered by trained Vocational Support Workers. The planned sample size was 720, the first 4 months of recruitment served as an internal pilot phase and the primary outcome was self-reported days of work absence over 6 months.

Results: One hundred and thirty participants were recruited from 7955 invitations (May 2022-May 2023) before trial closure (64 usual care, 66 usual care plus vocational advice). Exploratory analysis of 125 participants (with outcome data) indicated small additional benefits of the vocational advice intervention over usual care [mean days absence = 37.86 (standard deviation = 48.76) vs. usual care = 42.66 (standard deviation = 57.67), incidence rate ratio = 0.913, 80% confidence interval (0.653 to 1.276)]. The vocational advice intervention was delivered remotely [mean = 4.8 contacts (range 1-12)]. Partial health economic evaluation found lower work productivity losses at 6 months after vocational advice intervention (£5513.84, standard deviation = £7101.43) compared to usual care (£6146.21, standard deviation = £8431.88).

Conclusions, limitations and future work: Exploratory analysis indicated a signal of effect, with differences in the number of days absent from work, costs and secondary outcomes. Key lessons learned included the need for closer working with primary care teams and more flexible recruitment methods. A future fully powered randomised controlled trial of vocational advice intervention added to usual primary care is needed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 17/94/49.

在职成人因病缺勤的常规初级保健中增加早期职业建议:已终止的WAVE随机对照试验的探索性发现。
背景和目的:描述从中断的WAVE试验中获得的探索性发现和经验教训,该试验旨在确定在6个月以上病假天数的常规初级保健中增加早期职业咨询干预的有效性和成本。方法:实用、多中心、双平行、优势、随机对照试验与卫生经济分析在英国10全科医院,嵌套定性访谈。人群:邀请所有健康状况良好、缺勤≥2周、≤6个月的成年人参与研究。干预和比较:参与者被随机分配(1:1)到通常的初级保健,有/没有由训练有素的职业支持工作者提供的职业建议。计划样本量为720人,招聘的前4个月作为内部试点阶段,主要结果是自我报告6个月内的缺勤天数。结果:在试验结束前(2022年5月至2023年5月),从7955份邀请中招募了130名参与者(64名常规护理,66名常规护理加职业咨询)。125名参与者(含结果数据)的探索性分析表明,职业咨询干预比常规护理有较小的额外益处[平均缺勤天数= 37.86(标准差= 48.76)vs.常规护理= 42.66(标准差= 57.67),发病率比= 0.913,80%可信区间(0.653 ~ 1.276)]。远程提供职业咨询干预[平均= 4.8个联系人(范围1-12)]。部分健康经济评估发现,与常规护理(6146.21英镑,标准差= 8431.88英镑)相比,职业咨询干预后6个月的工作效率损失(5513.84英镑,标准差= 7101.43英镑)更低。结论、局限性和未来工作:探索性分析表明,在缺勤天数、成本和次要结果方面存在差异。吸取的主要经验教训包括需要与初级保健小组更密切地合作以及采用更灵活的招聘方法。未来需要进行一项全功率随机对照试验,将职业咨询干预加入常规初级保健,以确定其有效性和成本效益。资助:本文介绍了由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估项目资助的独立研究,奖励号为17/94/49。
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
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
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
小红书