The Return-to-Work Self-efficacy Questionnaire (RTW-SE): A Validation Study of Predictive Abilities and Cut-off Values for Patients on Sick Leave Due to Anxiety or Depression.
Ragne G H Gjengedal, Suzanne E Lagerveld, Silje E Reme and 3 others
PMID 33630238WHAT IT FOUND
Post-treatment scores on a return-to-work self-efficacy questionnaire separated patients working fully from those on sick leave.
Scores of 4.6 or higher predicted full return at 3, 6 and 12 months.
Key findings
01At intake, patients on full sick leave scored 2.75, those on partial sick leave scored 3.27, and those working fully scored 4.00 on the RTW-SE, and the groups differed significantly.
02A post-treatment RTW-SE cut-off of 4.6 best separated full work from sick leave, identifying 73.48% of patients working fully and 73.03% of patients on sick leave, while 3.7 best separated graded from full sick leave, identifying 68.04% of those on graded sick leave and 66.67% of those on full sick leave.
03Among 145 patients still on sick leave after treatment, post-treatment RTW-SE scores of 4.6 or higher had odds ratios of 5.21 at 3 months, 3.90 at 6 months and 10.06 at 12 months compared with scores below 3.7.
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 was naturalistic and observational, so it shows association between RTW-SE scores and return to work, not that changing the score causes return. The sample was from Norway and had a high education level, with 72.6% at university or college, so the cut-offs may not transfer to other populations. Full return to work was assessed only at 3, 6 and 12 months, so returns between those time points were not captured. The Norwegian RTW-SE was translated from the English version rather than directly from the Dutch original. The authors state that optimal cut-offs may vary by population and that the study needs replication in other cohorts and settings.
Declared interests
Funding was provided by Helse Sør-Øst RHF and Diakonhjemmet. The supplied text does not report author conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat a post-treatment RTW-SE score of 4.6 or higher as a guarantee that a patient will return to full work. The study was observational, the cut-offs came from one Norwegian cohort, and the authors say they need replication.