Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Effectiveness of clinical healthcare interventions for enhancing the work participation of patients with various health conditions: a synthesis of systematic reviews
  1. Lana Kluit1,2,
  2. Jan L Hoving1,2,
  3. Faridi S Jamaludin3,
  4. Coen A M van Bennekom1,4,
  5. Annechien Beumer1,5,
  6. Angela G E M de Boer1,2,6,
  7. Astrid de Wind1,2
  1. 1 Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Societal Participation & Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Medical Library AMC, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4 Heliomare Rehabilitation Centre, Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands
  5. 5 Upper Limb Unit Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
  6. 6 Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Mrs Lana Kluit; l.kluit{at}amsterdamumc.nl; Dr Astrid de Wind; a.dewind{at}amsterdamumc.nl

Abstract

Objectives This objectives of this study were to determine the effectiveness of clinical healthcare interventions designed for improving the work participation of patients with various health conditions and identify promising elements within these interventions.

Design A systematic literature search was conducted, and a synthesis of systematic reviews (SRs) was performed.

Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched for articles published from January 2012 to December 2023.

Eligibility criteria SRs of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions that aimed at improving work participation initiated within clinical healthcare in patients being treated for various health conditions were included.

Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently used standardised methods to search and select SRs, and extract data. Our primary outcome was work participation, which could include return-to-work rate or sick leave duration. We were interested in both short-, medium-, as well as long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the certainty of the evidence and findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles. We used a deductive synthesis to identify promising intervention elements.

Results The health conditions included in the selected SRs were cancer, chronic low back and musculoskeletal pain, coronary heart disease, inflammatory arthritis, complaints of the lumbopelvic region during pregnancy, stroke and traumatic brain injury. Across health conditions, many interventions trended towards small, favourable effects. Moderately certain evidence showed that multidisciplinary and physical interventions enhance work participation at 12 months for people with cancer (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33 and RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39, respectively), and that multidisciplinary interventions reduce the days of return to work compared with usual care for people with coronary heart disease (40.77 days lower than control, 95% CI −67.19 to −14.35). Low-certainty evidence suggested that multidisciplinary interventions may enhance work participation at 12 months for people with coronary heart disease (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.98) and reduce the number of sick leave days at 12 months for people with chronic low back pain (82, IQR 51 to 164 vs 175, IQR 91 to 365; p=0.003). Promising elements included (psycho)education, cognitive-behavioural therapy, psychosocial support, group and vocational counselling and physical training.

Conclusions There is considerable overlap in clinical healthcare interventions that aim to enhance work participation for patients across health conditions. Although their effects on work participation vary, some conditions show favourable response to multidisciplinary interventions. More evidence is needed on developing tailored interventions and evaluating their cost-effectiveness.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022346552.

  • Systematic Review
  • Occupational Health Services
  • Patient-Centred Care
  • Delivery of Health Care, Integrated
  • Clinical Decision-Making

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All data supporting the findings of this review are available within the paper and its supplementary material.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All data supporting the findings of this review are available within the paper and its supplementary material.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the study conception and design; read and approved the final manuscript. LK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. JLH, FSJ, CAMVB, AB, AGEMdB and AdW commented on the manuscript. AdW acted as the guarantor. ASreview was used during the title and abstract screening to limit the time investment to execute this phase. A detailed description of our usage of the technology has been included in the 'Methods' section.

  • Funding This work was supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgelden Medische Specialisten 2, commissioned by the Knowledge Institute—project 'Z69118343 NOV—More human, less patient: Generic module for work participation in medical specialist guidelines.

  • Competing interests AB was chair of the guideline panel that developed a generic module about work participation in medical specialist guidelines.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the 'Methods' section for further details.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.