Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Family Medicine Section, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Centre for Clinical Research Sörmland, Uppsala University, Eskilstuna, Sweden.
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Mar 27;21(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01123-y.
To evaluate the efficacy of a multidisciplinary vocational programme in sick-listed, primary health care patients as compared to matched non-programme patients.
The design was a 3-year prospective population-based, matched case-control study. It was set in a large primary healthcare centre in the city of Eskilstuna, Sweden. The subjects were 943 sickness-certified patients (482 women and 461 men). 170 high-risk patients and a matched control group (n = 340) with similar risk for not returning to work within expected time, based on propensity score was created. The intervention group passed a multidisciplinary medical assessment and a coordinated vocational programme, while the control group received usual care by their general practitioner. Main outcome was sick leave conclusion and the day when it occurred.
The follow-up time was subdivided into four periods. During the first two periods, days 1-14 and days 15-112 after baseline, the intervention group had a significantly lower sick leave conclusion rate than the control group (hazard ratios, (HR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.20-0.51, p < 0.0001 and 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.64). During the third period, days 113-365, the intervention group had an insignificantly lower conclusion rate (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.08, p = 0.10), and during the fourth follow-up period, days 366-1096, the intervention group had an insignificantly higher conclusion rate than the control group (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69-1.96, p = 0.58). Across the total follow-up period, the intervention group had a lower conclusion rate than the control group (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.66, p < 0.0001).
No positive significant effects of the rehabilitation programme on time to sick leave conclusion were found.
评估多学科职业方案在初级保健患者中对已请病假患者的疗效,与匹配的非方案患者相比。
这是一项为期 3 年的前瞻性基于人群的、匹配病例对照研究。它设在瑞典埃斯基尔斯蒂纳市的一个大型初级保健中心。研究对象为 943 名经病假证明的患者(482 名女性和 461 名男性)。根据倾向评分,创建了 170 名高危患者和具有类似预期内无法重返工作岗位风险的匹配对照组(n=340)。干预组通过多学科医疗评估和协调的职业方案,而对照组接受其全科医生的常规护理。主要结局是病假结论和发生的日期。
随访时间分为四个时期。在前两个时期,即基线后第 1-14 天和第 15-112 天,干预组的病假结论率明显低于对照组(风险比(HR)0.32,95%置信区间(CI)0.20-0.51,p<0.0001 和 0.47,95%CI 0.35-0.64)。在第三个时期,即第 113-365 天,干预组的结论率显著降低(HR 0.70,95%CI 0.46-1.08,p=0.10),在第四个随访期,即第 366-1096 天,干预组的结论率高于对照组(HR 1.16,95%CI 0.69-1.96,p=0.58)。在整个随访期间,干预组的结论率低于对照组(HR 0.55,95%CI 0.45-0.66,p<0.0001)。
未发现康复方案对病假结论时间有积极显著影响。