Quality of life, sense of coherence and occupational balance one year after an occupational therapy intervention for people with depression and anxiety disorders.
Petra Wagman, A Birgitta Gunnarsson, Fredrik Hjärthag and 2 others
PMID 37066954WHAT IT FOUND
People with depression and anxiety who kept working or returned to work improved their quality of life, while those on continuous sick leave did not.
All groups showed some gains in occupational balance, but small sample sizes mean these patterns are tentative.
Key findings
01Quality of life scores increased significantly over time only in the groups that were working or returned to work, not in the group on continuous sick leave.
02Occupational balance improved significantly over time in both the sick leave and return-to-work groups, but not in the continuously working group.
03There were no statistically significant differences between the three work-status groups for quality of life, sense of coherence, or occupational balance at any time point.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
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 had a very small sample size, with only 13 to 24 participants in each group, which limits the reliability of the findings. There was no control group that did not receive occupational therapy, so it is impossible to know if the improvements were due to the treatment or other factors. The group on continuous sick leave was older and had higher baseline levels of depression and anxiety than the other groups, which could have influenced the outcomes. The study did not collect information on why participants rated their outcomes as they did, or on external events that might have affected their work status or well-being.
Declared interests
The authors have nothing to declare.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that occupational therapy itself caused these improvements, as there was no control group. The small sample sizes and lack of between-group differences mean these results are not strong enough to change clinical practice guidelines.