Return-to-work interventions for sick-listed employees with burnout: a systematic review.

Burnout is a work-related mental health problem that often causes long-term sickness absence. Return-to-work (RTW) interventions for burned-out sick-listed employees aim to prevent long-term work disability. This systematic review addresses two questions: (1) Which interventions for burned-out sick-listed employees have been studied?; (2) What is the effect of these interventions on RTW?We performed a systematic literature review and searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022. We searched for articles of interventions for burned-out sick-listed employees. We conducted the review in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Outcome was RTW.We identified 2160 articles after removal of all duplicates. Eight studies met inclusion criteria. RTW outcomes were number of sick-leave days, sick-leave rates, median period of RTW and worked hours per week. Five studies described person-directed interventions, one described a workplace-directed intervention, one described a combination of both intervention types and one study described all three types of intervention. Only the workplace-directed intervention showed a significant improvement in RTW compared with the comparator group: at 18-month follow-up, 89% of the intervention group had returned to work compared with 73% of the comparator group.Only a limited number of studies have explored interventions specifically focused on burned-out sick-listed employees and the effect on RTW. Due to heterogeneity and moderate to high risk of bias of these studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the described interventions and their effect on RTW.The study was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42018089155).

How to identify the most suitable questionnaires and rating scales for your clinical practice or research?

BACKGROUND: Selection of the most suitable instrument for a health outcome or exposure assessment is challenging, as there are many different instruments and their versions, most with unknown validity. AIMS: To develop guidelines facilitating the search for the most suitable instrument. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on our experience, we formalised a five-step process. The first step is the search for systematic reviews of available instruments validity in COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), or conventional (eg, Medline and Web of Science) databases. If there is no systematic review, the clinician should look for original validation studies and assess them critically. We presented two alternatives of this assessment: qualitative using COSMIN and quantitative using our methodological framework. The latter helps to decide upon the instrument validity completeness and interpret the statistical results from original studies objectively. This process was then transformed into guidelines, which were tested by three external clinicians to select the most appropriate instrument to measure depression, occupational stress and daily fatigue. RESULTS: The guidelines were proved to facilitate the instrument search and selection, practical and time-saving. DISCUSSION: The guidelines assessment highlighted that clinicians should check whether the instrument that they are looking for was developed for screening or diagnosing purposes, whether it can be self-administered or not, and for which setting it was validated (academic vs clinical). CONCLUSION: These guidelines facilitate the objective choice of the most suitable instrument in clinical practice by making the search simple, systematic and time-effective.

Correction to: Assessment of long-term sickness absence: content and face validity of a new questionnaire based on qualitative data from nominal groups.

In the original publication of this article [1] the author Marc Du Bois was omitted. In this correction article the author and the corresponding details are provided. The publisher apologizes to the readers and authors for the inconvenience.

Assessment of long-term sickness absence: content and face validity of a new questionnaire based on qualitative data from nominal groups.

BACKGROUND: Increasing rates of long-term sickness absence are a worldwide problem. Belgium is the first country in Europe that aims to screen its entire population of sick leavers (sick leave > 6 weeks) for the risk of long-term sickness absence in order to focus resources on the high-risk group and to provide adequate return-to-work support. Our aim was to investigate content and face validity of a newly designed questionnaire (Quickscan) using item prioritization of patients and professionals in the field of long-term sickness absence. This questionnaire was developed based on a review of the literature and existing instruments (Goorts et al, J Public Health Res 7:1419, 2018). METHODS: Qualitative data were collected using the nominal group technique. The data were gathered exploring factors that influence return-to work restrictions or opportunities. RESULTS: Participants indicated 20 out of 21 of the questionnaire factors as important reasons that might influence the return-to-work process. Additionally, 16 factors were discussed that were not yet included in the Quickscan but that might provide useful information on return-to-work issues, according to the participants. In the prioritization of items, we found considerable diversity among participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the validity of the Quickscan items to ask patients about important return-to-work barriers or opportunities. However, additional factors were identified that may improve the assessment of risk for long-term sickness absence.