Return to Work for Mental Ill-Health: A Scoping Review Exploring the Impact and Role of Return-to-Work Coordinators.
E MacEachen, E McDonald, E Neiterman and 6 others
PMID 32002709WHAT IT FOUND
Evidence on return-to-work coordinators for mental health is sparse.
Coordinators did not consistently improve return-to-work rates and sometimes took longer than conventional care. Their specific strategies are poorly described, and no study checked if mental health itself improved.
Key findings
01Only five articles from four studies met inclusion criteria, indicating a limited evidence base.
02Interventions involving return-to-work coordinators sometimes resulted in longer time to return to work and lower return-to-work rates compared to conventional care.
03No included study assessed whether the mental health of participants actually improved.
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 evidence base is extremely small, with only five articles identified. All included studies were quantitative, so there is no information on the specific strategies or actions coordinators use. No study measured whether the intervention improved the patient's mental health, only return-to-work metrics. The review excluded people with severe mental health conditions like schizophrenia, so findings do not apply to them. There is potential publication bias, as null results are often not published.
Declared interests
The work was funded by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of positive findings as proof that return-to-work coordinators are ineffective. The studies were heterogeneous, few in number, and did not measure mental health outcomes, so the true value of the role remains unknown.