Skip to main content
. 2015 Jun 15;5(6):e007122. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007122

Table 2.

Outcomes of RTW intervention studies

Author(s) Intervention(s) RTW* Sickness leave duration*
van der Klink et al20
The Netherlands		 Problem-solving intervention+graded activity vs care as usual % RTW (cluster level analysis):
3 m (partial or full): 98% vs 87%; p=0.01
Full RTW: 3 m: 79% vs 64%; p=0.08
Full RTW: 12 m: 100% vs 100%		 Cluster level:
RTW (in days)
Median: 37 (95% CI 32 to 42) vs 51 (95% CI 35 to 67)
Mean: 36 (95% CI 31 to 40) vs 53 (95% CI 44 to 62); p=0.00
Full RTW (in days)
Median: 60 (95% CI 52 to 67) vs 83 (95% CI 79 to 88)
Mean: 67 (95% CI 52 to 83) vs 94 (95% CI 71 to 117): p=0.10
Duration of sick leave (in days):
Median: 46 (95% CI 41 to 51) vs 67 (95% CI 40 to 94)
Mean: 49 (95% CI 40 to 58) vs 73 (95% CI 55 to 92); p=0.02
Brouwers et al21
The Netherlands		 Intervention similar to van der Klink et al20 % Partial RTW: no significant differences
3 m: 27.8% vs 23.9%
6 m: 23.1% vs 23.5%
18 m: 5.7% vs 7.9%
% Full RTW: no significant differences
3 m: 37.1% vs 39.8%
6 m: 58.2% vs 62.4%
18 m: 85.1% vs 77.6%		 Sick leave (in days):
Mean: 106 (SD=87) vs 121 (SD=94)
Median: 86 vs 100
Full RTW (in days):
Mean: 153 (SD=122) vs 157 (SD=121)
Median: 120 vs 119
No significant differences in work resumption over time
Hees et al26
The Netherlands		 Adjuvant occupational therapy vs care as usual % RTW in good health:
6 m: 6% vs 10%; adjusted effect=−1% (95% CI −8% to 6%)
12 m: 34% vs 23%; adjusted effect=8% (95% CI −3% to 20%)
18 m: 52% vs 28%; adjusted effect=24% (95% CI 12% to 36%)
Coefficients from mixed model:
Group: 0.03 (95% CI −0.8 to 0.9); p=0.94
Time: 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); p<0.001
Time2: −0.5 (95% CI −1.0 to −0.1); p=0.01
Group×time: 0.6 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.5); p=0.02
Group×time2: −0.3 (95% CI −1.1 to 0.6); p=0.49		 Mean Absenteeism (in hours):
6 m: 22.7 (SD=10.0) vs 23.3 (SD=10.8)
12 m: 14.1 (SD=11.9) vs 17.0 (SD=12.8)
18 m: 10.4 (SD=12.5) vs 11.9 (SD=12.3)
Coefficients from mixed model:
Group: −5.5 (95% CI −22.9 to 11.9); p=0.53
Time: −36.0 (95% CI −42.2 to −29.8); p<0.001
Time2: 10.9 (95% CI 4.7 to 17.0); p<0.001
Group×time: −3.1 (95% CI −16.2 to 10.4); p=0.64
Group×time2: 11.0 (95% CI −1.9 to 23.8); p=0.09
Median partial RTW (in days): 80 (IQR: 42, 172) vs 166 (IQR: 67, 350)
HR=0.72; p=0.14
Median full RTW (in days): 361 (IQR: 193, 653) vs 405 (IQR: 189, 613)
HR=0.93; p=0.79
Nystuen and Hagen27
Norway		 Solution focused follow-up vs treatment as usual Mean days: 217.5 (SD=82.8) vs 212.0 (SD=84.2); p=0.73
Rebergen et al17
The Netherlands		 Guideline based care vs care as usual Partial RTW (in days):
Mean: 53.1 (SD=56.3) vs 50.6 (SD=78.4); p=0.28
Median: 50 (95% CI 34 to 66) vs 47 (95% CI 31 to 63)
HR=0.99; p=0.94
Full RTW (in days):
Median: 105 (95% CI 84 to 126) vs 104 (95% CI 81 to 127)
HR=0.96; p=0.78
Vlasvled et al23
The Netherlands		 Collaborative care vs care as usual Full RTW: 12 m: 64.6% vs 59.0% (not tested) Full RTW (mean days): 198 (SD=120) vs 215 (SD=118); p>0.05

*Intervention vs control.

m, months; RTW, return-to-work.