AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable to systematic reviews of non-intervention studies: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was originally developed for systematic reviews (SRs) of health-care interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of AMSTAR 2 to SRs of non-intervention studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a meta-research study. We used 20 SRs for each of the following four types of SRs: Diagnostic Test Accuracy reviews, Etiology and/or Risk reviews, Prevalence and/or Incidence reviews, and Prognostic reviews (80 in total). Three authors applied AMSTAR 2 independently to each included SRs. Then, the authors assessed the applicability of each item to that SR type and any SR type. RESULTS: Researchers unanimously indicated that 7 of 16 AMSTAR 2 items were applicable for all four specific SR types and any SR type (items 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 16), but 8 of 16 items for any SR type. These items could cover generic SR methods that do not depend on a specific SR type. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable for non-intervention SRs. There is a need to adapt/extend AMSTAR 2 for SRs of non-intervention studies. Our study can help to further define generic methodological aspects shared across SR types and methodological expectations for non-intervention SRs.

[What is a public health intervention? Results of a Delphi process in German-speaking countries]. / Was wird unter einer Public-Health-Intervention verstanden? Ergebnisse eines Delphi-Prozesses im deutschsprachigen Raum.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, a variety of definitions for public health interventions (PHI) exist. In the German-speaking countries, however, a definition is still outstanding. Therefore, the aim of this study was to derive consensus criteria for the definition of PHI from the expert perspective of science and practice. METHODS: A Delphi survey with two online rounds was conducted from December 2022 to February 2023. Six criteria were formulated by a working group and posed for consensus: 1) the intention of the intervention, 2) potential conflicts of interest of the initiators of the intervention, 3) primary vs. secondary/tertiary prevention, 4) costs, 5) targeting, and 6) the reach of the intervention. In both Delphi rounds, experts from academia and practice were recruited through relevant networks and associations throughout the German-speaking world. The judgments were asked about standardized rating scales with the possibility of open justification. RESULTS: In the first Delphi round, n = 52 and in the second round n = 43 experts from research, care and administration/management in health care participated. Consensus was reached on four of the six criteria after the second Delphi round: the intention of the intervention, possible conflicts of interest of the initiators of the intervention, primary vs. secondary/tertiary prevention, and the scope of the intervention. From the perspective of the experts interviewed, these are the criteria that distinguish PHI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Based on the consensus criteria, PHI can be defined more concretely. Thus, the results contribute to a better inter- and transdisciplinary understanding. Ideally, the criteria will make it easier to assign interventions to the public health sector in the future, even if a precise examination will be necessary in individual cases, among other things because the experts disagreed on the criteria of costs and how to address the target group.

Evaluating a multimodal, clinical and work-directed intervention (RTW-PIA) to support sustainable return to work among employees with mental disorders: study protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders (MDs) are one of the leading causes for workforce sickness absence and disability worldwide. The burden, costs and challenges are enormous for the individuals concerned, employers and society at large. Although most MDs are characterised by a high risk of relapse after treatment or by chronic courses, interventions that link medical-psychotherapeutic approaches with work-directed components to facilitate a sustainable return to work (RTW) are rare. This protocol describes the design of a study to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness and implementation process of a multimodal, clinical and work-directed intervention, called RTW-PIA, aimed at employees with MDs to achieve sustainable RTW in Germany. METHODS: The study consists of an effectiveness, a health-economic and a process evaluation, designed as a two-armed, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, conducted in German psychiatric outpatient clinics. Sick-listed employees with MDs will receive either the 18-month RTW-PIA treatment in conjunction with care as usual, or care as usual only. RTW-PIA consists of a face-to-face individual RTW support, RTW aftercare group meetings, and web-based aftercare. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after completion of baseline survey. The primary outcome is the employees´ achievement of sustainable RTW, defined as reporting less than six weeks of working days missed out due to sickness absence within 12 months after first RTW. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, mental functioning, RTW self-efficacy, overall job satisfaction, severity of mental illness and work ability. The health-economic evaluation will be conducted from a societal and public health care perspective, as well as from the employer's perspective in a cost-benefit analysis. The design will be supplemented by a qualitative effect evaluation using pre- and post-interviews, and a multimethod process evaluation examining various predefined key process indicators from different stakeholder perspectives. DISCUSSION: By applying a comprehensive, multimethodological evaluation design, this study captures various facets of RTW-PIA. In case of promising results for sustainable RTW, RTW-PIA may be integrated into standard care within German psychiatric outpatient clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00026232 , 1 September 2021).

User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary.

BACKGROUND: 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective. DISCUSSION: A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2-16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2-16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

[Prevalence of Operational Integration Management: Are Health Orientation and Social Resources More Critical Than Company Size? Results of the 2018 BIBB/BAuA Employment Survey]. / Verbreitung des betrieblichen Eingliederungsmanagements: Sind Gesundheitsorientierung und soziale Ressourcen bedeutsamer als Betriebsgröße? Ergebnisse der BIBB/BAuA-Erwerbstätigenbefragung 2018.

AIMS: The aim of the present study was to examine whether the prevalence of the operational integration management programme in Germany (BEM) is associated with selected structural characteristics of companies and variables from the field of social resources. METHODS: The study was based on the representative 2018 BIBB/BAuA employment survey. An assumption was made of the existence of an association between BEM and characteristics of companies, indicating a prioritisation of health and social resources. Furthermore, the same variables were considered with the acceptance of BEM, complemented by person-related characteristics. RESULTS: About forty percent of employees on long-term sick leave were offered BEM, of which about seventy percent accepted the offer. BEM was more likely to be offered in companies where employees were aware of workplace health promotion (WHP) measures, where supervisors often gave praise and recognition, where there was often a sense of community in the workplace, and where there was a works or staff council. In smaller companies, in service and craft enterprises, the BEM offer was accepted more frequently than in larger companies, the public sector, and in companies in the industry. Of the personal characteristics, only a longer incapacity to work was associated with the acceptance of BEM. CONCLUSIONS: The association with WHP and appreciative supervisor behaviour suggest that companies in which good and health-promoting work is given higher priority are more likely to implement the legal requirements for BEM. At the same time, it is also conceivable that the opposite effect exists and that companies have taken the introduction of BEM as an opportunity to review their other commitment to the health of their employees because of the cases that have occurred.

The Current Practice of Gradual Return to Work in Germany: A Qualitative Study Protocol.

(1) Background: The increase in working age and long-term illnesses is a challenge for society to maintain the health of employees and to support their work participation. In many countries, such as Germany, a gradual return to work (GRTW) is used frequently to support returning employees, but little is known about its facilitators and obstacles. This protocol aims to provide an overview of the national state of the art in workplace adjustments during return to work and to outline the design of a qualitative study examining current GRTW practices in Germany. (2) Methods: Our qualitative study will examine the current implementation of GRTW by means of 32 narrative interviews and 10 group discussions from different perspectives. Therefore, we will ask returning employees as well as organisational stakeholders and external experts about their experiences with GRTW and attitudes towards the measure. The verbal data obtained will be analysed using the documentary method of interpretation. (3) Discussion: This study will reveal facilitating and hindering factors for the implementation of GRTW in Germany. The findings of the study may contribute to an improved implementation of GRTW not only in Germany.

[Experiences of Stigmatization Among Professional Caregivers in the Context of Covid-19 - a Qualitative Study]. / Stigmatisierungserfahrungen bei beruflich Pflegenden im Kontext von Covid-19 ­ eine Qualitative Studie.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare workers seem to be more affected by stigma due to the Covid-19 pandemic compared to other occupational groups. However, there is very little research on this topic. The aims of the present study were to investigate pandemic-related stigmatization experiences among nursing and medical staff in Germany and determine the type and effects of stigmatization as well as appropriate prevention and intervention measures. METHODS: The interviews were conducted by a semi-structured interview guide and evaluated using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen nurses participated in the interviews. Sources of stigmatization were friends and acquaintances, family members, executives, colleagues, patients and their relatives, strangers and public media. Some of the interviewed persons reported self-stigmatization. A common cause of stigma in the private environment was the fear of infection. In the context of the work, illness-related absence was also named as one of the causes of stigma. The interviewees reported about distancing and avoiding contact, as well as allegations they were faced with. As a result, they suffered from negative feelings and partially from psychosomatic complaints. Some interviewees tried to avoid stigmatization by concealing their own profession or place of work. Help was offered in private and professional context in form of conversations and encouragement. CONCLUSION: Stigmatization of healthcare professionals during the pandemic has hardly been explored in Germany. There is a particular need for research to quantify the extent, manifestations and effects of work-related stigmatization and to develop suitable preventive measures at workplace and outside of work.

Employees Receiving Inpatient Treatment for Common Mental Disorders in Germany: Factors Associated with Time to First and Full Return to Work.

Purpose In Germany, return to work (RTW) after inpatient treatment for common mental disorders (CMDs) is a complex process at the intersection of the mental healthcare system and the workplace. This study examined (1) the time to first and full RTW and (2) associated factors among employees receiving inpatient treatment for CMDs. Methods In this prospective cohort study, employees receiving inpatient psychiatric or medical rehabilitation treatment for CMDs were interviewed by phone during their last week before discharge. Follow-up interviews were conducted after 6, 12, and 18 months. Health-, personal, and work-related factors were used from baseline measurement. Parametric survival analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with time to first and full RTW. Results A total of N = 269 participants who stayed at a psychiatric clinic or a medical rehabilitation facility were included. Almost all participants (n = 252, 94%) from both treatment settings reported a first RTW and a full RTW. The time to first and full RTW was shortest among participants from medical rehabilitation (both median 6 days) and longer among participants from psychiatric treatment (median 17 days to first RTW and 73 days to full RTW). While only health-related and personal factors were associated with time to first RTW, leadership quality and needed individual RTW support were associated with time to full RTW. Conclusions More attention to work accommodation needs for RTW in clinical practice and coordinated actions towards RTW in collaboration with key RTW stakeholders in the workplace may support a timely RTW.Clinical Registration Number DRKS00010903, retrospectively registered.

Early intervention, treatment and rehabilitation of employees with common mental disorders by using psychotherapeutic consultation at work: study protocol of a randomised controlled multicentre trial (friaa project).

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are one of the leading causes for sickness absence and early retirement due to reduced health. Furthermore, a treatment gap for common mental disorders has been described worldwide. Within this study, psychotherapeutic consultation at work defined as a tailored, module-based and work-related psychotherapeutic intervention will be applied to improve mental health care. METHODS: This study comprises a randomised controlled multicentre trial with 1:1 allocation to an intervention and control group. In total, 520 employees with common mental disorders shall be recruited from companies being located around five study centres in Germany. Besides care as usual, the intervention group will receive up to 17 sessions of psychotherapy. The first session will include basics diagnostics and medical indication of treatment and the second session will include work-related diagnostics. Then, participants of the intervention group may receive work-related psychotherapeutic consultation for up to ten sessions. Further psychotherapeutic consultation during return to work for up to five sessions will be offered where appropriate. The control group will receive care as usual and the first intervention session of basic diagnostics and medical indication of treatment. After enrolment to the study, participants will be followed up after nine (first follow-up) and fifteen (second follow-up) months. Self-reported days of sickness absence within the last 6 months at the second follow-up will be used as the primary outcome and self-efficacy at the second follow-up as the secondary outcome. Furthermore, a cost-benefit assessment related to costs of common mental disorders for social insurances and companies will be performed. DISCUSSION: Psychotherapeutic consultation at work represents a low threshold care model aiming to overcome treatment gaps for employees with common mental disorders. If successfully implemented and evaluated, it might serve as a role model to the care of employees with common mental disorders and might be adopted in standard care in cooperation with sickness and pension insurances in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The friaa project was registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS) at 01.03.2021 (DRKS00023049): https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023049 .

Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement - a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: Systematic Reviews (SRs) can build the groundwork for evidence-based health care decision-making. A sound methodological quality of SRs is crucial. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) is a widely used tool developed to assess the methodological quality of SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Research shows that AMSTAR seems to be valid and reliable in terms of interrater reliability (IRR), but the test retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR has never been investigated. In our study we investigated the TRR of AMSTAR to evaluate the importance of its measurement and contribute to the discussion of the measurement properties of AMSTAR and other quality assessment tools. METHODS: Seven raters at three institutions independently assessed the methodological quality of SRs in the field of occupational health with AMSTAR. Between the first and second ratings was a timespan of approximately two years. Answers were dichotomized, and we calculated the TRR of all raters and AMSTAR items using Gwet's AC1 coefficient. To investigate the impact of variation in the ratings over time, we obtained summary scores for each review. RESULTS: AMSTAR item 4 (Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?) provided the lowest median TRR of 0.53 (moderate agreement). Perfect agreement of all reviewers was detected for AMSTAR-item 1 with a Gwet's AC1 of 1, which represented perfect agreement. The median TRR of the single raters varied between 0.69 (substantial agreement) and 0.89 (almost perfect agreement). Variation of two or more points in yes-scored AMSTAR items was observed in 65% (73/112) of all assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The high variation between the first and second AMSTAR ratings suggests that consideration of the TRR is important when evaluating the psychometric properties of AMSTAR.. However, more evidence is needed to investigate this neglected issue of measurement properties. Our results may initiate discussion of the importance of considering the TRR of assessment tools. A further examination of the TRR of AMSTAR, as well as other recently established rating tools such as AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), would be useful.

[Workplace and Work-Related Return to Work Interventions for Employees with Common Mental Disorders: Between Health-Promoting Organisational Development and Self-Management]. / Betriebsnahe Versorgungsnetzwerke und -angebote zur Unterstützung des Return to Work nach psychischer Krise: Zwischen gesundheitsförderlicher Organisationsentwicklung und Selbstmanagement der Zurückkehrenden.

PURPOSE: Work-related interventions and alliances between healthcare institutions and companies that aim to support employees with common mental disorders (CMD) returning to work are still quite rare in Germany. The present study examines a small sample of existing alliances and interventions with the aim to describe their cooperation forms and treatment approaches, to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and thus to provide guidance for their further development and dissemination. METHODS: Five alliances/interventions were selected on the basis of a web search. Subsequently 11 group discussions and 17 qualitative interviews with involved health care professionals and occupational stakeholders (n=44) as well as employees with CMD (n=17) were conducted and evaluated by documentary method and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The examined interventions follow either a person oriented self-management or a systemic case management approach. The self-management approach focusses on what has to be done by the person him-/herself to get back to work (focus on individual adaption). The systemic approach additionally asks for workplace adaption. Which approach is chosen, depends inter alia on the involved actors' preconscious frames of orientation, i. e. their assumptions regarding the modifiability of work-related risk factors. The main strength of the self-management approach lies in its ability to reinforce self-care, its main shortcoming in the one-sided focus on individual adaption and the risk of individualizing the disease, its causes and coverage. The systemic approach seems to be more sustainable through the combination of individual and workplace adaptions. The challenge here is to find an appropriate balance between individual self-care and occupational health care. CONCLUSION: The findings show how the RTW of employees with CMD can be supported by more collaborative and work-related interventions. However, they also reveal limits and barriers of existing interventions and therefore provide useful hints for their further development and dissemination.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Several standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update - AMSTAR 2 - is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that include randomised (RCT) or non-randomised studies (NRS) of healthcare interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of SR on pharmacological or psychological interventions in major depression in adults was conducted. SR published during 2012-2017 were sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of SR. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Potential predictive factors associated with quality were examined. RESULTS: In rating overall confidence in the results of 60 SR four reviews were rated "high", two were "moderate", one was "low" and 53 were "critically low". The mean AMSTAR 2 percentage score was 45.3% (standard deviation 22.6%) in a wide range from 7.1% to 93.8%. Predictors of higher quality were: type of review (higher quality in Cochrane Reviews), SR including only randomized trials and higher journal impact factor. LIMITATIONS: AMSTAR 2 is not intended to be used for the generation of a percentage score. CONCLUSIONS: According to AMSTAR 2 the overall methodological quality of SR on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement. Although there is a high need for summarized information in the field of mental health, this work demonstrates the need to critically assess SR before using their findings. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines for SR is needed.

Returning to work after sickness absence due to common mental disorders: study design and baseline findings from an 18 months mixed methods follow-up study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: With nearly 30 % of the general population experiencing one mental disorder in 12 months, common mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent in Germany and mainly affect the workforce. Therefore, the processes of successfully returning to work (RTW) and achieving a sustainable RTW (SRTW) are important not only for recovery but the prevention of negative consequences like job loss or disability retirement. While factors influencing and predicting the time until RTW are well-investigated in other countries, research on determinants of RTW and SRTW has received little attention in Germany. Consequently, this study aims to investigate the RTW and SRTW processes due to CMDs from the employees´ perspective in Germany. METHODS: This prospective cohort study uses a convergent parallel mixed methods design with a quantitative sample and qualitative sub-sample. Two hundred eighty-six participants of the quantitative study and a sub-sample of 32 participants of the qualitative study were included. The primary outcome of the quantitative study is the time until RTW and full RTW. The secondary outcome is the sustainability of RTW. The following measures will be used to cover work-, RTW- and health-related factors: working time, duration of sickness absences, functional ability, work ability, RTW self-efficacy, social support, work-privacy conflict, job satisfaction, job crafting and depressive symptoms. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated at the end. DISCUSSION: The paper provides an overview on study design, recruitment, sample characteristics and baseline findings of an 18 months mixed methods follow-up study in Germany. This study will provide evidence of (S)RTW processes and its influencing factors due to CMDs in Germany and therefore contribute to further improvement of its (S)RTW practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00010903, July 28, 2017, retrospectively registered).

A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine the interrater reliability (IRR) of assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 for reviews of pharmacological or psychological interventions for the treatment of major depression, to compare it to that of AMSTAR and risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS), and to assess the convergent validity between the appraisal tools. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two groups of four raters were each assigned one of two samples of 30 systematic reviews. All eight raters applied AMSTAR 2 to their sample. Each group also applied either AMSTAR or ROBIS. Fleiss' kappa and Gwet's AC1 were calculated, and agreement between the tools was assessed. RESULTS: The median kappa values as a measure of IRR indicated a moderate agreement for AMSTAR 2 (median = 0.51), a substantial agreement for AMSTAR (median = 0.62), and a fair agreement for ROBIS (median = 0.27). Validity results showed a positive association for AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2 (r = 0.91) as well as ROBIS and AMSTAR 2 (r = 0.84). For the overall rating, AMSTAR 2 showed a high concordance with ROBIS and a lower concordance with AMSTAR. CONCLUSION: The IRR of AMSTAR 2 was found to be slightly lower than the IRR of AMSTAR and higher than the IRR of ROBIS. Validity measurements indicate that AMSTAR 2 is closely related to both ROBIS and AMSTAR.

Costs of isocyanate-related occupational diseases: A systematic review.

Although isocyanates are increasingly used in manufacturing and workplace exposure to isocyanates is widely recognized as one of the most frequent causes for occupational lung and skin diseases, little is known about the economic burden on the affected individual and the society. This study provides an overview on costs of occupational diseases related to isocyanates. We performed a systematic literature search of studies in the electronic databases of the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information, and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. We extracted the key characteristics of the studies and performed a study quality assessment. We identified eight studies on the costs of illness, of which five focused on occupational lung diseases and three on occupational skin diseases. Further, eight studies calculated loss of income/compensation payments. Out of the 16 identified articles, only two reported costs directly attributable to isocyanate-induced diseases (asthma). Studies were hardly comparable because they differed substantially in their methodological approaches. Moreover, the quality assessment of the studies revealed substantial limitations. While a wide range of isocyanate-related costs was identified, consequences of isocyanate-related occupational diseases were considerable in terms of societal costs and loss of income. In most studies, indirect costs were the main cost driver. There is a need for high-quality cost of illness studies on isocyanate-induced diseases stratified by degree of severity and sex. Such studies provide valuable information to develop preventive strategies and set priorities for measures to lower the burden of professional health risks.

Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: People with coronary heart disease (CHD) often require prolonged absences from work to convalesce after acute disease events like myocardial infarctions (MI) or revascularisation procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduced functional capacity and anxiety due to CHD may further delay or prevent return to work. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of person- and work-directed interventions aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with coronary heart disease compared to usual care or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, HSELINE, CISDOC, and LILACS through 11 October 2018. We also searched the US National Library of Medicine registry, clinicaltrials.gov, to identify ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining return to work among people with CHD who were provided either an intervention or usual care. Selected studies included only people treated for MI or who had undergone either a CABG or PCI. At least 80% of the study population should have been working prior to the CHD and not at the time of the trial, or study authors had to have considered a return-to-work subgroup. We included studies in all languages. Two review authors independently selected the studies and consulted a third review author to resolve disagreements. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses of rates of return to work and time until return to work. We considered the secondary outcomes, health-related quality of life and adverse events among studies where at least 80% of study participants were eligible to return to work. MAIN RESULTS: We found 39 RCTs (including one cluster- and four three-armed RCTs). We included the return-to-work results of 34 studies in the meta-analyses.Person-directed, psychological counselling versus usual careWe included 11 studies considering return to work following psychological interventions among a subgroup of 615 participants in the meta-analysis. Most interventions used some form of counselling to address participants' disease-related anxieties and provided information on the causes and course of CHD to dispel misconceptions. We do not know if these interventions increase return to work up to six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.40; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at six to 12 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; seven studies; very low-certainty evidence). We also do not know if psychological interventions shorten the time until return to work. Psychological interventions may have little or no effect on the proportion of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; three studies; low-certainty evidence).Person-directed, work-directed counselling versus usual careFour studies examined work-directed counselling. These counselling interventions included advising patients when to return to work based on treadmill testing or extended counselling to include co-workers' fears and misconceptions regarding CHD. Work-directed counselling may result in little to no difference in the mean difference (MD) in days until return to work (MD -7.52 days, 95% CI -20.07 to 5.03 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Work-directed counselling probably results in little to no difference in cardiac deaths (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.39; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Person-directed, physical conditioning interventions versus usual careNine studies examined the impact of exercise programmes. Compared to usual care, we do not know if physical interventions increase return to work up to six months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in return-to-work rates at six to 12 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.20; five studies; low-certainty evidence), and may also result in little to no difference on the rates of patients working after one year (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; two studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in the time needed to return to work (MD -7.86 days, 95% CI -29.46 to 13.74 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions probably do not increase cardiac death rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.80; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Person-directed, combined interventions versus usual careWe included 13 studies considering return to work following combined interventions in the meta-analysis. Combined cardiac rehabilitation programmes may have increased return to work up to six months (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5; four studies; low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no difference on return-to-work rates at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; 10 studies; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if combined interventions increased the proportions of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.37; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Combined interventions probably shortened the time needed until return to work (MD -40.77, 95% CI -67.19 to -14.35; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Combining interventions probably results in little to no difference in reinfarctions (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.40; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Work-directed, interventionsWe found no studies exclusively examining strictly work-directed interventions at the workplace. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combined interventions may increase return to work up to six months and probably reduce the time away from work. Otherwise, we found no evidence of either a beneficial or harmful effect of person-directed interventions. The certainty of the evidence for the various interventions and outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. Return to work was typically a secondary outcome of the studies, and as such, the results pertaining to return to work were often poorly reported. Adhering to RCT reporting guidelines could greatly improve the evidence of future research. A research gap exists regarding controlled trials of work-directed interventions, health-related quality of life within the return-to-work process, and adverse effects.

How is AMSTAR applied by authors - a call for better reporting.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool is widely used for investigating the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). Originally, AMSTAR was developed for SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Its applicability to SRs of other study designs remains unclear. Our objectives were to: 1) analyze how AMSTAR is applied by authors and (2) analyze whether the authors pay attention to the original purpose of AMSTAR and for what it has been validated. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from inception through October 2016 to identify studies that applied AMSTAR. Full-text studies were sought for all retrieved hits and screened by one reviewer. A second reviewer verified the excluded studies (liberal acceleration). Data were extracted into structured tables by one reviewer and were checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies at any stage were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third person. We analyzed the data descriptively as frequencies or medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Associations were quantified using the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We identified 247 studies. They included a median of 17 reviews (interquartile range (IQR): 8 to 47) per study. AMSTAR was modified in 23% (57/247) of studies. In most studies, an AMSTAR score was calculated (200/247; 81%). Methods for calculating an AMSTAR score varied, with summing up all yes answers (yes = 1) being the most frequent option (102/200; 51%). More than one third of the authors failed to report how the AMSTAR score was obtained (71/200; 36%). In a subgroup analysis, we compared overviews of reviews (n = 154) with the methodological publications (n = 93). The overviews of reviews were much less likely to mention both limitations with respect to study designs (if other studies other than RCTs were included in the reviews) (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) and overall score (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Authors, peer reviewers, and editors should pay more attention to the correct use and reporting of assessment tools in evidence synthesis. Authors of overviews of reviews should ensure to have a methodological expert in their review team.

Determinants of Sickness Absence and Return to Work Among Employees with Common Mental Disorders: A Scoping Review.

Purpose To present an overview of the existing evidence on prognostic factors of (recurrent) sickness absence (SA) and return to work (RTW) among workers with a common mental disorder (CMD). This scoping review provides information about determinants for SA and RTW, which could be used to develop better interventions aimed at the prevention of SA and promotion of RTW among workers with a CMD. Methods Relevant articles were identified in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and SINGLE up to October 2016. In order to be included, studies should provide insight into prognostic factors of SA or RTW of workers with a CMD. We classified all factors according to the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Results Our searches identified 2447 possible relevant articles, of which 71 were included for data extraction. There is consistent evidence in ≥3 studies that previous episodes of CMD, higher symptom severity, previous absenteeism, co-morbidity, high job demands, low job control, high job strain, female gender, lower educational level, smoking behavior, and low perceived general health are predictors of SA in people with CMDs. Earlier RTW is consistently predicted by lower symptom severity, having no previous absenteeism, younger age, and positive expectations concerning sick-leave duration or RTW. Conclusions The amount of research on determinants for SA and RTW in workers with CMD has increased dramatically in recent years, although most studies are from the Netherlands and Scandinavia. There are some research gaps identified in this scoping review that need further attention in primary and secondary studies. Based on the summary of the evidence, we provide guidance for policy, practice and research.