Suppr超能文献

盲目相信?促进背痛患者主动休病假的效果:一项整群随机对照试验

Blind faith? The effects of promoting active sick leave for back pain patients: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Scheel Inger B, Hagen Kåre Birger, Herrin Jeph, Carling Cheryl, Oxman Andrew D

机构信息

Department of Social Services Research, Norwegian Directorate for Health and Social Welfare, Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Dec 1;27(23):2734-40. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200212010-00014.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of two strategies to increase the use of active sick leave (ASL) among patients with low back pain (LBP) on improved return to work and quality of life.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Active sick leave is an option provided by the Norwegian National Insurance Administration that enables employees to return to modified duties at the workplace with 100% of normal wages. A proactive implementation strategy increased the use of ASL for LBP patients from 11.5% to 17.7% compared with a passive intervention and a control group ( = 0.006).

METHODS

Sixty-five municipalities were randomly assigned to a passive intervention, a proactive intervention, or a control group. The interventions, which were designed to improve the use of ASL, were targeted at patients on sick leave for LBP for more than 16 days (n = 6179), their general practitioners, employers, and local insurance officers. The main outcome measures were the average number of days off work, the proportion of patients returning to work within 1 year, and self-reported quality of life while on sick leave.

RESULTS

The median number of days on sick leave was similar in the proactive intervention group (70 days), the passive intervention group (68 days), and the control group (71 days) ( = 0.8). The proportion of patients returning to work before 50 weeks was also similar in the proactive (89%), passive (89.5%), and control groups (89.1%). Response rates for the questionnaires that were sent to patients were low (38%), and no significant differences were observed across the three groups for quality of life or patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not likely that efforts to increase the use of ASL will result in measurable economic benefits or improved health outcomes at the population level. The benefits of ASL for individual patients with LBP are not known.

摘要

研究设计

整群随机对照试验。

目的

评估两种旨在增加腰痛(LBP)患者主动病假使用的策略对改善重返工作岗位和生活质量的效果。

背景数据总结

主动病假是挪威国家保险管理局提供的一种选择,使员工能够以正常工资的100%回到工作场所从事调整后的工作。与被动干预组和对照组相比,积极主动的实施策略使LBP患者的主动病假使用率从11.5%提高到了17.7%(P = 0.006)。

方法

65个市政当局被随机分配到被动干预组、主动干预组或对照组。旨在提高主动病假使用率的干预措施针对病假超过16天的LBP患者(n = 6179)、他们的全科医生、雇主和当地保险官员。主要结局指标为平均缺勤天数、1年内重返工作岗位的患者比例以及病假期间自我报告的生活质量。

结果

主动干预组(70天)、被动干预组(68天)和对照组(71天)的病假天数中位数相似(P = 0.8)。主动干预组(89%)、被动干预组(89.5%)和对照组(89.1%)在50周前重返工作岗位的患者比例也相似。发送给患者的问卷回复率较低(38%),三组在生活质量或患者满意度方面未观察到显著差异。

结论

增加主动病假使用的努力不太可能在人群层面带来可衡量的经济效益或改善健康结局。主动病假对个体LBP患者的益处尚不清楚。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验