MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376273875 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11101403

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Return-to-Work Interventions for Individuals with Work-Related Mental Health Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4376273875 on OpenAlexaff
Behdin Nowrouzi‐Kia, Pablo Garrido, Basem Gohar, Amin Yazdani, Vijay Kumar Chattu, Ali Bani‐Fatemi, Aaron Howe, Andrea Duncan, Maria Paz Riquelme, Faizah Abdullah, Sharan Jaswal, Joyce Lo, Yusra Fayyaz, Bushra Binte Alam

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsConestoga CollegeUniversity of GuelphLaurentian UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsPsychological interventionAbsenteeismMental healthChecklistMeta-analysisPsychologyCritical appraisalSystematic reviewClinical psychologyQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineMEDLINEPsychiatryNursingSocial psychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The workplace is a vital setting to support positive mental health. Mental health conditions in the workforce contribute to decreased work engagement and participation. There is existing literature on return-to-work (RTW) interventions for individuals with work-related mental health conditions, however, there lacks consensus on their effectiveness. Therefore, the primary aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the literature and evaluate the effectiveness of return-to-work interventions on return-to-work rates, quality of life, and psychological wellbeing for individuals with work-related mental health conditions. Selected articles were organized and identified using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome (PICO) framework. Quality assessment of the included studies was completed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme randomized controlled trials checklist and the Joanna Briggs Institute quasi-experimental studies checklist. A random effects meta-analysis model was performed using DerSimonian-Laird weighting to calculate standard mean difference and risk ratios to assess the impact of RTW interventions on return-to-work rates, absenteeism, stress symptoms, depression symptoms, and quality of life. A total of 28 out of 26,153 articles met the inclusion criteria. Diagnoses for participants in the studies ranged from work-related stress to work-related PTSD following exposure to a psychologically traumatizing event in the workplace. No significant differences were found for the meta-analyses examining return-to-work rates, absenteeism, depression, stress, and quality of life. The most effective interventions were found to be a multi-domain intervention (67% of participants RTW full time) and a health-focused intervention (85% RTW rate). Future research may consider establishing effective interventions to develop programs or policies supporting the RTW of employees and promote mental well-being among employees experiencing work-related mental health conditions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207