Variation in effect of intervention studies in research on sickness absence

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
H. Soegaard
{"title":"Variation in effect of intervention studies in research on sickness absence","authors":"H. Soegaard","doi":"10.2147/OAJCT.S25651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Correspondence: Hans Joergen Soegaard Forskningsenhed Vest, Center for Psykiatrisk Forskning, Gl Landevej 43, 7400 Herning, Denmark Tel +45 7847 4660 Fax +45 7847 4637 Email hans-joergen.soegaard@ps.rm.dk Background: Intervention studies in sickness absence research demonstrate a low effect and ambiguous results in reducing sickness absence and improving work status. The aim of this study was to determine if the effect of interventions is related to type of intervention, target population, inclusion criteria used, and impact of the scientific quality of the studies. Methods: Based on a structured review of 57 studies, short-term, medium-term, and longterm effects were analyzed with regard to the type of intervention, target population, inclusion criteria, and scientific quality of the studies. Results: The overall result was that the effect rate was low, ie, about 20% for short-term effect (up to 6 months) and medium-term effect (6–12 months), and 40% for long-term effect ($12 months). Interventions using stress reduction were most effective with regard to shortterm and medium-term effects, whereas collaborative care was most effective for long-term effects. The effects were related to the inclusion criteria and, to a minor degree, to the scientific quality of the studies. Conclusion: In the field of sickness absence research, more attention should be paid to the interrelationship between the types of interventions, target populations, and inclusion criteria for the studies. Larger studies of high methodological quality are needed. Steps should be taken to standardize outcome measures.","PeriodicalId":19500,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials","volume":"4 1","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2012-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/OAJCT.S25651","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJCT.S25651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Correspondence: Hans Joergen Soegaard Forskningsenhed Vest, Center for Psykiatrisk Forskning, Gl Landevej 43, 7400 Herning, Denmark Tel +45 7847 4660 Fax +45 7847 4637 Email hans-joergen.soegaard@ps.rm.dk Background: Intervention studies in sickness absence research demonstrate a low effect and ambiguous results in reducing sickness absence and improving work status. The aim of this study was to determine if the effect of interventions is related to type of intervention, target population, inclusion criteria used, and impact of the scientific quality of the studies. Methods: Based on a structured review of 57 studies, short-term, medium-term, and longterm effects were analyzed with regard to the type of intervention, target population, inclusion criteria, and scientific quality of the studies. Results: The overall result was that the effect rate was low, ie, about 20% for short-term effect (up to 6 months) and medium-term effect (6–12 months), and 40% for long-term effect ($12 months). Interventions using stress reduction were most effective with regard to shortterm and medium-term effects, whereas collaborative care was most effective for long-term effects. The effects were related to the inclusion criteria and, to a minor degree, to the scientific quality of the studies. Conclusion: In the field of sickness absence research, more attention should be paid to the interrelationship between the types of interventions, target populations, and inclusion criteria for the studies. Larger studies of high methodological quality are needed. Steps should be taken to standardize outcome measures.
病假缺勤研究中干预研究效果的变异
通讯:Hans Joergen Soegaard Forskningsenhed Vest, Forskning精神风险中心,Gl landdevej 43, 7400 Herning,丹麦电话+45 7847 4660传真+45 7847 4637电子邮件hans-joergen.soegaard@ps.rm.dk背景:对缺勤的干预研究表明,在减少缺勤和改善工作状态方面效果低,结果不明确。本研究的目的是确定干预措施的效果是否与干预措施的类型、目标人群、使用的纳入标准以及研究的科学质量的影响有关。方法:基于对57项研究的结构化回顾,对干预类型、目标人群、纳入标准和研究的科学质量进行短期、中期和长期影响分析。结果:整体效果较低,短期效果(6个月以内)和中期效果(6 - 12个月)约为20%,长期效果(12个月以内)约为40%。使用减压的干预措施在短期和中期效果方面最有效,而协作护理在长期效果方面最有效。这些影响与纳入标准有关,并在较小程度上与研究的科学质量有关。结论:在病假研究领域,应重视干预措施类型、目标人群和研究纳入标准之间的相互关系。需要更大规模的高质量方法学研究。应采取步骤使结果衡量标准标准化。
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
Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials
Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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