Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Neulaniementie 4, 70101, Kuopio, Finland.
Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Work Review Group, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2022 Feb 14;20(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00823-4.
Coordination of return to work (RtW) is implemented in many countries, but a Cochrane review found no considerable effect on workers' sick leave compared to usual care. The aim of the study is to analyse how the evidence from this review can be used for decisions about (de-)implementing RtW coordination in a country-specific setting, using Finland as an example.
We conducted a systematic literature search and online survey with two groups of experts to compare interventions included in the Cochrane review to Finnish RtW practice using content analysis methods. We applied the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework criteria to draw conclusions about (de-)implementing RtW coordination in Finland, including benefits, harms and costs of the intervention compared to usual care.
We included seven documents from the literature search and received data from 10 of 42 survey participants. RtW coordination included, both in Finland and in the review, at least one face-to-face meeting between the physician and the worker, a workers' needs assessment, and an individual RtW plan and its implementation. Usual care focuses on medical treatment and may include general RtW advice. RtW coordination would be cost-saving if it decreases sick leave with at least 2 days compared to usual care. The evidence in the Cochrane review was mainly of low certainty, and the effect sizes had relatively wide confidence intervals. Only a new, high-quality and large randomized controlled trial (RCT) can decrease the current uncertainty, but this is unlikely to happen. The EtD framework did not provide arguments for further implementation or for de-implementation of the intervention.
Interventions evaluated in the Cochrane review are similar to RtW coordination and usual care interventions in Finland. Considering all EtD framework criteria, including certainty of the evidence and costs, de-implementation of RtW coordination interventions in Finland seems unnecessary. Better evidence about the costs and stakeholders' values regarding RtW coordination is needed to improve decision-making.
许多国家都实施了协调重返工作岗位(RtW)的措施,但 Cochrane 综述发现,与常规护理相比,这些措施对工人的病假并没有显著影响。本研究旨在分析如何在芬兰等特定国家背景下,利用该综述的证据来决定(取消)实施 RtW 协调。
我们进行了系统文献检索,并对两组专家进行了在线调查,使用内容分析方法比较 Cochrane 综述中纳入的干预措施与芬兰 RtW 实践。我们应用证据决策(EtD)框架标准,得出关于在芬兰取消或实施 RtW 协调的结论,包括与常规护理相比,干预措施的获益、危害和成本。
我们纳入了文献检索中的 7 篇文献,并从 42 名调查参与者中获得了 10 名参与者的数据。RtW 协调在芬兰和综述中都至少包括一次医生和工人之间的面对面会议、工人需求评估以及个性化的 RtW 计划及其实施。常规护理主要侧重于医疗治疗,可能包括一般的 RtW 建议。如果 RtW 协调能将病假减少至少 2 天,那么它将节省成本。Cochrane 综述中的证据主要是低确定性的,且效果大小置信区间较宽。只有一项新的、高质量和大规模的随机对照试验(RCT)才能降低当前的不确定性,但这不太可能发生。EtD 框架没有为进一步实施或取消干预提供论据。
Cochrane 综述中评估的干预措施与芬兰的 RtW 协调和常规护理干预措施相似。考虑到所有 EtD 框架标准,包括证据的确定性和成本,取消芬兰的 RtW 协调干预似乎没有必要。需要更好的证据来改善决策,包括 RtW 协调的成本和利益相关者的价值观。