Table 5 Work and education outcomes for reducing length of sickness absence in employees

Length of sickness absence

CMD

Occupational training integrated into psychodynamic treatment vs TAU

Y

Y

Y

Y

The intervention group had the lowest rate of work disability both one- and two-years following discharge. The mean duration of sick leave differed significantly between the intervention group and the control group 2 years post discharge F = 3.08, P < .01

Work-focused CBT with convergence dialogue training vs work-focused CBT only

N

Y

N

N

Full return to work took longer, but not significantly so, after the end of the intervention in the convergence dialogue training intervention group compared to the control group (Hedges g = 0.64, 95% CI: -1.33, 0.05)

Adjuvant occupational therapy vs TAU

Y

Y

N

Y

There were no significant differences between groups in length of sickness absence at 6 months (Hedges g = 0.06, 95% CI: -0.33, 0.44), 12 months (Hedges g = 0.23, 95% CI: -0.15, 0.62) or 18 months (Hedges g = 0.12, 95% CI: -0.26, 0.50) post baseline

Exposure based return to work intervention vs TAU

N

N

Y

Y

The hazard ratio at 12 months for full return to work of the intervention group compared to that of the TAU group was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.89), indicating that they had a lower likelihood of reaching full return to work (n not reported)

Guideline based care (an activating approach, time contingent process evaluation, and cognitive behavioural principles) vs TAU

Y

N

Y

Y

At 12 months no clear effects of the intervention were found on the time to full return to work HR = 0.96, 95% CI:0.73, 1.27, P < .05)

Occupational physicians intervention vs TAU

Y

Y

Y

N

At 12 months no significant differences occurred in time to full return to work between intervention and control group (HR = 0.96 95% CI: 0.85, 1.15) nor for first return to work (HR = 0.96, 95% CI:0.90, 1.15)

Collaborative care for major depression vs TAU

Y

N

Y

N

Within 1-year follow-up, 64.6% of the collaborative care participants and 59.0% of the usual care participants had achieved lasting, full RTW (non-significant, OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.72, 2.25)

E-Health cognitive web intervention vs TAU

Y

N

Y

N

After 1 year, there was no significant difference between the E-Health and the TAU groups in the number of participants reaching full or partial return to work (OR = 1.39, 0.64, 3.01)

Mixed mental health conditions

RESPECT manager mental health awareness training vs waitlist

N

N

N

N

There was no significant difference between the employees whose manager had received the RESPECT training and the employees whose manager was on a waitlist for the training in the proportion of employee planned hours that were spent on sick leave (b = 0.169, p = 0.73)