Department of Health Services Research, Division of Primary Care, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Br J Gen Pract. 2011 Mar;61(584):e118-24. doi: 10.3399/bjgp11X561221.
Long-term sickness absence and incapacity benefits (disability pension) rates have increased across industrialised countries. Effective measures are needed to support return to work. The recommendations of this guidance were informed by the most appropriate available evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Public health evidence was provided by research using a variety of study designs that attempted to determine the outcome of a particular intervention by evaluating status before and after the intervention had been effected, and was not limited to randomised control trials. Where the evidence base was depleted or underdeveloped, expert witnesses were called to give their opinion on the best available evidence and emerging interventions. The process enabled challenge and contestability from stakeholder groups at different points as the guidance was developed. Forty-five heterogeneous studies were included in the review of interventions to reduce long-term sickness absence and transitions from short-term to long-term absence (mainly covering the former and also mainly examining musculoskeletal conditions). The analysis of evidence was restricted to descriptive synthesis. Three general themes emerged from an analysis of the studies that were more likely to report positive results: early interventions; multidisciplinary approaches; and interventions with a workplace component. Two further reviews were undertaken, one on interventions to reduce the re-occurrence of sickness absence, which identified seven studies on lower back pain, and concluded that early intervention and direct workplace input are important factors. The final evidence review focused on six studies of interventions for those in receipt of incapacity benefit. The evidence was that work-focused interviews coupled with access to tailored support are effective and cost-effective interventions. Practitioners should consider the impact of interventions and management options on work ability for patients of working age. Work ability should be considered a key outcome for future intervention studies.
在工业化国家,长期病假和丧失工作能力福利(残疾抚恤金)的比率一直在上升。需要采取有效的措施来支持重返工作岗位。本指南的建议是根据最适当的现有有效性和成本效益证据得出的。公共卫生证据来自使用各种研究设计的研究,这些研究试图通过评估干预措施实施前后的状况来确定特定干预措施的结果,并且不限于随机对照试验。在证据基础薄弱或不发达的情况下,专家证人被召集来就最佳现有证据和新出现的干预措施发表意见。在制定指南的过程中,不同利益相关者群体在不同阶段都对该过程提出了质疑和挑战。在减少长期病假和从短期病假过渡到长期病假的干预措施的审查中,共纳入了 45 项异质性研究(主要涵盖前者,主要检查肌肉骨骼疾病)。证据分析仅限于描述性综合。通过对这些研究的分析,出现了三个更有可能报告积极结果的主题:早期干预;多学科方法;以及具有工作场所组成部分的干预措施。另外进行了两项审查,一项是关于减少病假再次发生的干预措施,其中包括 7 项关于腰痛的研究,结论是早期干预和直接的工作场所投入是重要因素。最后一项证据审查的重点是 6 项针对领取丧失工作能力福利者的干预措施的研究。有证据表明,以工作为重点的访谈加上获得量身定制的支持是有效和具有成本效益的干预措施。从业者应考虑干预措施和管理方案对工作年龄患者的工作能力的影响。工作能力应被视为未来干预研究的关键结果。