Arends Iris, Bruinvels David J, Rebergen David S, Nieuwenhuijsen Karen, Madan Ira, Neumeyer-Gromen Angela, Bültmann Ute, Verbeek Jos H
Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University ofGroningen, Groningen,
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12(12):CD006389. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006389.pub2.
Adjustment disorders are a frequent cause of sick leave and various interventions have been developed to expedite the return to work (RTW) of individuals on sick leave due to adjustment disorders.
To assess the effects of interventions facilitating RTW for workers with acute or chronic adjustment disorders.
We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to October 2011; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to Issue 4, 2011; MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science, all years to February 2011; the WHO trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov in March 2011. We also screened reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to facilitate RTW of workers with adjustment disorders compared to no or other treatment. Eligible interventions were pharmacological interventions, psychological interventions (such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and problem solving therapy), relaxation techniques, exercise programmes, employee assistance programmes or combinations of these interventions. The primary outcomes were time to partial and time to full RTW, and secondary outcomes were severity of symptoms of adjustment disorder, work functioning, generic functional status (i.e. the overall functional capabilities of an individual, such as physical functioning, social function, general mental health) and quality of life.
Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled studies that we deemed sufficiently clinically homogeneous in different comparison groups, and assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included nine studies reporting on 10 psychological interventions and one combined intervention. The studies included 1546 participants. No RCTs were found of pharmacological interventions, exercise programmes or employee assistance programmes. We assessed seven studies as having low risk of bias and the studies that were pooled together were comparable. For those who received no treatment, compared with CBT, the assumed time to partial and full RTW was 88 and 252 days respectively. Based on two studies with a total of 159 participants, moderate-quality evidence showed that CBT had similar results for time (measured in days) until partial RTW compared to no treatment at one-year follow-up (mean difference (MD) -8.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.26 to 5.71). We found low-quality evidence of similar results for CBT and no treatment on the reduction of days until full RTW at one-year follow-up (MD -35.73, 95% CI -113.15 to 41.69) (one study with 105 participants included in the analysis). Based on moderate-quality evidence, problem solving therapy (PST) significantly reduced time until partial RTW at one-year follow-up compared to non-guideline based care (MD -17.00, 95% CI -26.48 to -7.52) (one study with 192 participants clustered among 33 treatment providers included in the analysis), but we found moderate-quality evidence of no significant effect on reducing days until full RTW at one-year follow-up (MD -17.73, 95% CI -37.35 to 1.90) (two studies with 342 participants included in the analysis).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that CBT did not significantly reduce time until partial RTW and low-quality evidence that it did not significantly reduce time to full RTW compared with no treatment. Moderate-quality evidence showed that PST significantly enhanced partial RTW at one-year follow-up compared to non-guideline based care but did not significantly enhance time to full RTW at one-year follow-up. An important limitation was the small number of studies included in the meta-analyses and the small number of participants, which lowered the power of the analyses.
适应障碍是病假的常见原因,人们已开展了各种干预措施,以加速因适应障碍而休病假的人员重返工作岗位(RTW)。
评估促进急性或慢性适应障碍工人RTW的干预措施的效果。
我们检索了截至2011年10月的Cochrane抑郁、焦虑和神经症综述小组专业注册库(CCDANCTR);截至2011年第4期的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL);截至2011年2月的所有年份的MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO和ISI科学网;2011年3月的世界卫生组织试验门户(ICTRP)和ClinicalTrials.gov。我们还筛选了纳入研究的参考文献列表和相关综述。
我们选择了随机对照试验(RCT),评估与不治疗或其他治疗相比,促进适应障碍工人RTW的干预措施的有效性。符合条件的干预措施包括药物干预、心理干预(如认知行为疗法(CBT)和问题解决疗法)、放松技巧、运动计划、员工援助计划或这些干预措施的组合。主要结局是部分RTW时间和完全RTW时间,次要结局是适应障碍症状的严重程度、工作功能、一般功能状态(即个体的整体功能能力,如身体功能、社会功能、一般心理健康)和生活质量。
两位作者独立选择研究、评估偏倚风险并提取数据。我们汇总了我们认为在不同比较组中临床同质性足够的研究,并使用GRADE方法评估证据的总体质量。
我们纳入了9项报告10种心理干预和1种联合干预的研究。这些研究包括1546名参与者。未发现关于药物干预、运动计划或员工援助计划的RCT。我们评估7项研究的偏倚风险较低,汇总在一起的研究具有可比性。对于未接受治疗的人,与CBT相比,假定的部分RTW时间和完全RTW时间分别为88天和252天。基于两项共159名参与者的研究,中等质量证据表明,在一年随访时,与未治疗相比,CBT在部分RTW时间(以天为单位测量)方面结果相似(平均差(MD)-8.78,95%置信区间(CI)-23.26至5.71)。我们发现低质量证据表明,在一年随访时,CBT和未治疗在减少完全RTW天数方面结果相似(MD -35.73,95%CI -113.15至41.69)(一项纳入分析的研究有105名参与者)。基于中等质量证据,与非基于指南的护理相比,问题解决疗法(PST)在一年随访时显著缩短了部分RTW时间(MD -17.00,95%CI -26.48至-7.52)(一项纳入分析的研究有192名参与者,聚集在33个治疗提供者中),但我们发现中等质量证据表明,在一年随访时,对减少完全RTW天数没有显著影响(MD -17.73,95%CI -3至1.90)(两项纳入分析的研究有342名参与者)。
我们发现中等质量证据表明,与未治疗相比,CBT在缩短部分RTW时间方面没有显著效果,低质量证据表明在缩短完全RTW时间方面也没有显著效果。中等质量证据表明,与非基于指南的护理相比,PST在一年随访时显著提高了部分RTW,但在一年随访时没有显著提高完全RTW时间。一个重要的局限性是纳入荟萃分析的研究数量少且参与者数量少,这降低了分析的效力。