MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Workplace interventions for preventing work disability

2009· review· en· W2132302069 on OpenAlex
Sandra H. van Oostrom, Maurice T. Driessen, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Renée‐Louise Franche, Eva Schönstein, Patrick Loisel, Willem van Mechelen, Johannes R. Anema

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicinePsycINFOMEDLINERandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyMeta-analysisSick leaveHealth carePsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Work disability has serious consequences for all stakeholders and society. Workplace interventions are considered appropriate to facilitate return to work by reducing barriers to return to work, involving the collaboration of key stakeholders. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions compared to usual care or clinical interventions on work-related outcomes and health outcomes; and to evaluate whether the effects differ when applied to musculoskeletal disorders, mental health problems, or other health conditions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Occupational Health Field Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE (EMBASE.com), and PsycINFO databases (to November 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of workplace interventions aimed at return to work for workers where absence from work because of sickness was reported as a continuous outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the studies. Meta-analysis and qualitative analysis (using GRADE levels of evidence) were performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomized controlled trials (749 workers): three on low back pain, one on upper-extremity disorders, one on musculoskeletal disorders, and one on adjustment disorders. Five studies were rated as having low risk of bias for the sickness absence outcome. The results of this review show that there is moderate-quality evidence to support the use of workplace interventions to reduce sickness absence among workers with musculoskeletal disorders when compared to usual care. However, workplace interventions were not effective to improve health outcomes among workers with musculoskeletal disorders. The lack of studies made it impossible to investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions among workers with mental health problems and other health conditions. A comparison of a workplace intervention with a clinical intervention, in one study only, yielded similar results for sickness absence and symptoms for workers with mental health problems. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the few available studies, no convincing conclusions can be formulated about the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work-related outcomes and health outcomes regardless of the type of work disability. The pooled data for the musculoskeletal disorders subgroup indicated that workplace interventions are effective in the reduction of sickness absence, but they are not effective in improving health outcomes. The evidence from the subgroup analysis on musculoskeletal disorders was rated as moderate-quality evidence. Unfortunately, conclusions cannot be drawn on the effectiveness of these interventions for mental health problems and other health conditions due to a lack of studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.011
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations280
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207