Return to Work Trajectories of Swedish Employees on Sick-Leave Due to Common Mental Disorders.
Anna Toropova, Elisabeth Björk Brämberg, Gunnar Bergström
PMID 38907784WHAT IT FOUND
Employees on sick-leave for mental disorders followed five distinct return-to-work paths over 12 months.
Baseline factors like previous sick-leave length, exhaustion disorder, and work environment support predicted which path a person took, suggesting interventions should be tailored to these specific risk profiles.
Key findings
01Five distinct return-to-work trajectories were identified: Early, Delayed, Late, Struggling, and No Return to Work.
02Longer previous sick-leave was associated with slower return-to-work trajectories (Delayed, Late, and No Return to Work) compared to the Early trajectory.
03Higher social support at work was associated with membership in the Delayed trajectory compared to Early, but lower social support was associated with the No Return to Work trajectory compared to Late.
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 sample size was relatively small for the complexity of the trajectory analysis, which may compromise statistical power. The study was exploratory, and multiple statistical tests increased the risk of false-positive findings. Results may not generalise to populations in other countries or healthcare systems due to specific Swedish social security and workplace conditions. The study did not find a significant difference in trajectory membership between the intervention and control groups, so it does not show that the specific intervention changed the trajectory.
Declared interests
Funded by The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare and Karolinska Institute. No other conflicts of interest are reported in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this as evidence that a specific workplace intervention changes return-to-work trajectories. The study found that the experimental condition did not significantly predict which trajectory a person followed. The value lies in identifying baseline risk factors that predict the natural course of recovery, not in proving the efficacy of the tested intervention.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →