Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31346923›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2020

Implementation of Early Intervention Protocol in Australia for 'High Risk' Injured Workers is Associated with Fewer Lost Work Days Over 2 Years Than Usual (Stepped) Care.

M K Nicholas, D S J Costa, S J Linton, C J Main, W S Shaw, G Pearce, M Gleeson, R Z Pinto, F M Blyth, J H McAuley and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

M K NicholasSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. michael.nicholas@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-4947-398X
D S J CostaSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
S J LintonCenter for Health And Medical Psychology, Department of Law, Psychology, and Social Work, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
C J MainArthritis Care UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, North Staffordshire, UK.
W S ShawUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
G PearceSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
M GleesonSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
R Z PintoSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
F M BlythSchool of Public Health, Concord Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
J H McAuleyNeuroscience Research Australia and School of Medical Sciences, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
R J E M SmeetsDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Caphri, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A McGarityInjury Management Health & Safety Branch, NSW Fire and Safety, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate whether a protocol for early intervention addressing the psychosocial risk factors for delayed return to work in workers with soft tissue injuries would achieve better long-term outcomes than usual (stepped) care. Methods The study used a controlled, non-randomised prospective design to compare two case management approaches. For the intervention condition, workers screened within 1-3 weeks of injury as being at high risk of delayed returned to work by the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire-short version (ÖMPSQ-SF) were offered psychological assessment and a comprehensive protocol to address the identified obstacles for return to work. Similarly identified injured workers in the control condition were managed under usual (stepped) care arrangements. Results At 2-year follow-up, the mean lost work days for the Intervention group was less than half that of the usual care group, their claim costs were 30% lower, as was the growth trajectory of their costs after 11 months. Conclusions The findings supported the hypothesis that brief psychological risk factor screening, combined with a protocol for active collaboration between key stakeholders to address identified psychological and workplace factors for delayed return to work, can achieve better return on investment than usual (stepped) care.

Indexed as

Accidents, OccupationalAdultAustraliaCase ManagementDisability EvaluationEmploymentFemaleHumansMalePersons with DisabilitiesProspective StudiesReturn to WorkSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsWorkers' CompensationEarly interventionPsychosocial factorsScreeningWorkers’ compensationWork injury

Identifiers

PMID31346923

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.