Return-to-work self-efficacy after occupational rehabilitation for musculoskeletal and common mental health disorders: Secondary outcomes of a randomized clinical trial.
Martin Skagseth, Marius S Fimland, Marit B Rise and 2 others
PMID 33393638WHAT IT FOUND
Adding a workplace meeting to standard rehabilitation did not improve return-to-work self-efficacy more than the standard programme alone.
However, patients who ended rehabilitation with higher self-efficacy scores had fewer sick leave days in the following year.
Key findings
01There was no significant difference in the change in total return-to-work self-efficacy scores over time between the standard rehabilitation group and the group that also received a workplace intervention.
02Participants with a medium or high self-efficacy score at the end of rehabilitation had significantly fewer sickness absence days during the 12-month follow-up compared to those with a low score.
03Participants whose self-efficacy scores increased during rehabilitation had fewer sickness absence days in the follow-up period compared to those whose scores remained consistently low.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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 response rate for questionnaires decreased to approximately 65% at 4 months, and non-responders had significantly fewer sickness absence days than responders, which may have biased the results. Participants were recruited from a specific county in Norway and had to be willing to participate in a workplace meeting, limiting generalizability. The study analyzed secondary outcomes (RTWSE) rather than the primary outcome (sickness absence days) of the original trial, though it used registry data for the absence days. The workplace intervention was added to an already comprehensive multimodal programme, making it difficult to isolate the effect of the workplace component alone if the base programme was already effective.
Declared interests
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that workplace interventions are ineffective for return-to-work outcomes. This study specifically found no difference in *self-efficacy* scores between the two groups, but self-efficacy is just one factor. The original trial's primary outcome (sickness absence days) and other potential benefits of workplace interventions were not the focus of this secondary analysis.