Does a brief work-stress intervention prevent sick-leave during the following 24 months? A randomized controlled trial in Swedish primary care.
Jenny Hultqvist, Pernilla Bjerkeli, Gunnel Hensing and 1 others
PMID 34842202WHAT IT FOUND
A brief work-stress intervention in primary care did not prevent sick leave over 24 months.
The intervention group had slightly fewer sick days, but the difference was not significant. The study may have been underpowered to detect a real effect.
Key findings
01The brief work-stress intervention was not proven effective in preventing sick leave in the following 24 months compared to treatment as usual.
02At the 24-month follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and the control group.
03The lack of statistically significant differences between the groups might be due to a type II error if the study was underpowered.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study may have been underpowered to detect a difference in sick leave days, as no separate power calculation was performed for the 24-month follow-up. The brief intervention might have been too short to effectively change GP behavior or patient outcomes over a two-year period. There were baseline differences between the groups: the intervention group had more older participants, more musculoskeletal complaints, and a higher number of health complaints overall. The study did not collect data on whether GPs actually followed the new routines or if their knowledge increased, so it is unclear if the intervention was delivered as intended.
Declared interests
None reported. The study was funded by The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the intervention works because the intervention group had slightly fewer sick days. The difference was not statistically significant, and the authors state the study may have been underpowered to detect a real effect.