21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Return-to-work intervention versus usual care for sick-listed employees: health-economic investment appraisal alongside a cluster randomised trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To evaluate the health-economic costs and benefits of a guided eHealth intervention (E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational healthcare (ECO)) encouraging sick-listed employees to a faster return to work.

          Design

          A two-armed cluster randomised trial with occupational physicians (OPs) (n=62), clustered and randomised by region into an experimental and a control group, to conduct a health-economic investment appraisal. Online self-reported data were collected from employees at baseline, after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.

          Setting

          Occupational health care in the Netherlands.

          Participants

          Employees from small-sized and medium-sized companies (≥18 years), sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with (symptoms of) common mental disorders visiting their OP.

          Interventions

          In the intervention group, employees (N=131) received an eHealth module aimed at changing cognitions regarding return to work, while OPs were supported by a decision aid for treatment and referral options. Employees in the control condition (N=89) received usual sickness guidance.

          Outcomes Measures

          Net benefits and return on investment based on absenteeism, presenteeism, health care use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

          Results

          From the employer’s perspective, the incremental net benefits were €3187 per employee over a single year, representing a return of investment of €11 per invested Euro, with a break-even point at 6 months. The economic case was also favourable from the employee’s perspective, partly because of QALY health gains. The intervention was costing €234 per employee from a health service financier’s perspective. The incremental net benefits from a social perspective were €4210. This amount dropped to €3559 in the sensitivity analysis trimming the 5% highest costs.

          Conclusions

          The data suggest that the ECO intervention offers good value for money for virtually all stakeholders involved, because initial investments were more than recouped within a single year. The sometimes wide 95% CIs suggest that the costs and benefits are not always very precise estimates and real benefits could vary considerably.

          Trial Registration

          NTR2108; Results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms.

          Somatization is prevalent in primary care and is associated with substantial functional impairment and healthcare utilization. However, instruments for identifying and monitoring somatic symptoms are few in number and not widely used. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief measure of the severity of somatic symptoms. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-15 comprises 15 somatic symptoms from the PHQ, each symptom scored from 0 ("not bothered at all") to 2 ("bothered a lot"). The PHQ-15 was administered to 6000 patients in eight general internal medicine and family practice clinics and seven obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Outcomes included functional status as assessed by the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-20), self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. As PHQ-15 somatic symptom severity increased, there was a substantial stepwise decrement in functional status on all six SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and healthcare utilization increased. PHQ-15 scores of 5, 10, 15, represented cutoff points for low, medium, and high somatic symptom severity, respectively. Somatic and depressive symptom severity had differential effects on outcomes. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. The PHQ-15 is a brief, self-administered questionnaire that may be useful in screening for somatization and in monitoring somatic symptom severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Long term sickness absence.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2017
                5 October 2017
                : 7
                : 10
                : e016348
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentPublic Mental Health , Trimbos Institute , Utrecht, Netherlands
                [2 ] departmentInnovation of Care , Trimbos Institute , Utrecht, Netherlands
                [3 ] departmentTranzo , Tilburg University Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences , Tilburg, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands
                [4 ] departmentCenter of Innovation , Trimbos Institute , Utrecht, Netherlands
                [5 ] EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [6 ] departmentDepartment of Psychiatry , VU University Medical Center Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [7 ] departmentDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics , VU University Medical Centre , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [8 ] departmentClinical Centre of Excellence for Body, Mind and Health , GGZ Breburg , Tilburg, Netherlands
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] and Suzanne Lokman; slokman@ 123456trimbos.nl
                Article
                bmjopen-2017-016348
                10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016348
                5640022
                28982815
                e8f8c7dd-640c-425a-86e1-606e8933ba8d
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                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 and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 08 February 2017
                : 14 September 2017
                : 15 September 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007344, Achmea;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001826, ZonMw;
                Categories
                Occupational and Environmental Medicine
                Research
                1506
                1716
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                mental disorder,absenteeism,return to work,ehealth,cost-benefit,occupational health
                Medicine
                mental disorder, absenteeism, return to work, ehealth, cost-benefit, occupational health

                Comments

                Comment on this article