[Development process of Evidence-based "Return-to-work Guidance in Occupational Health 2017"].

OBJECTIVE: "Return-to-work Guidance in Occupational Health 2017 (RTW Guidance 2017) " is the first occupational health guide in Japan that evaluates the quality of evidence and offers recommendations based on results of the systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Details of the systematic review of each review question (RQs) will be described separately. This article presents an overview of the method and process of developing the "RTW Guidance 2017."

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The guidance was developed following the previously-published "Method for developing evidence based occupational health guidance," which included the composition of a highly-transparent guidance developing group as well as the recruitment and selection of RQs. Using the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Ichushi-Web, a literature search for the six RQs was conducted in January 2016 by partly modifying the search terms of the existing systematic review. Articles were selected according to the inclusion criteria, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was conducted for RQ2 and RQ4, and a qualitative systematic review was conducted for RQ5, RQ6, and cost-effectiveness. Recommendations were subsequently made after a thorough consideration for feasibility in Japan by examining the costs and available resources.

RESULTS: Based on a comprehensive literature search, eleven RQ2, four RQ4, one RQ5, and three RQ6 were selected. Support program for returning to work, such as "Re-work" for those who are temporarily not working due to musculoskeletal disorders or mental health disorder, was recommended based on moderate evidence (RQ2). For RQ4, the collaboration between occupational health practice and clinical practice was weakly recommended based on low evidence. For RQ5 that evaluated the usefulness of social support, intervention by the manager/co-worker was proposed as a "best practice statement" without indicating it as a recommendation. Work accommodation was weakly recommended based on low evidence in RQ6.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: From the result of systematic reviews, it was recommended for workers on sick leave more than four weeks regardless of sick leave and sickness absence that interventions during leave would improve work-related outcomes, such as earlier reinstatement. Although there is limited evidence regarding occupational health in Japan, it is important for many occupational health professionals to learn the method of developing guidance and to identify issues for future studies with priority in Japan.