We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Employment status five years after a randomised controlled trial comparing multidisciplinary and brief intervention in employees on sick leave due to low back pain.
AIMS: To evaluate differences in employment status, during a five-year follow-up period in patients on sick leave due to low back pain who had participated in a trial comparing a brief and a multidisciplinary intervention.
METHODS: From 2004 to 2008, 535 patients were referred to the Spine Centre at the Regional Hospital in Silkeborg if they had been on sick leave for 3-16 weeks due to low back pain. All patients underwent a clinical examination by a rehabilitation physician and a physiotherapist, and were randomised to either the brief intervention or the multidisciplinary intervention. The outcome was employment status from randomisation to five years of follow-up and was measured by the mean number of weeks in four different groups of employment status (sequence analysis) and a fraction of the number of weeks working (work participation score) that were accumulated over the years.
RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were randomised to the brief intervention and 233 patients to the multidisciplinary intervention. No statistically significant differences in the mean weeks spent within the different employment statuses were found between the two intervention groups. After five years of follow-up, participants in the multidisciplinary intervention had a 19% higher risk of not having a work participation score above 75% compared to participants in the brief intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: After five years of follow-up no differences in employment status were found between participants in the brief and the multidisciplinary intervention.
METHODS: From 2004 to 2008, 535 patients were referred to the Spine Centre at the Regional Hospital in Silkeborg if they had been on sick leave for 3-16 weeks due to low back pain. All patients underwent a clinical examination by a rehabilitation physician and a physiotherapist, and were randomised to either the brief intervention or the multidisciplinary intervention. The outcome was employment status from randomisation to five years of follow-up and was measured by the mean number of weeks in four different groups of employment status (sequence analysis) and a fraction of the number of weeks working (work participation score) that were accumulated over the years.
RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were randomised to the brief intervention and 233 patients to the multidisciplinary intervention. No statistically significant differences in the mean weeks spent within the different employment statuses were found between the two intervention groups. After five years of follow-up, participants in the multidisciplinary intervention had a 19% higher risk of not having a work participation score above 75% compared to participants in the brief intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: After five years of follow-up no differences in employment status were found between participants in the brief and the multidisciplinary intervention.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app