Effects of Inpatient Occupational Rehabilitation vs. Outpatient Acceptance and Commitment Therapy on Sick Leave and Cost of Lost Production: 7-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Previously, we reported that an inpatient multimodal occupational rehabilitation program (I-MORE) was more effective than outpatient Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (O-ACT) in reducing sickness absence and was cost-effective over a 24-month period. Here we present 7-years of follow-up on sick leave and the cost of lost production. METHODS: We randomized individuals aged 18-60, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal or mental health disorders to I-MORE (n = 82) or O-ACT (n = 79). I-MORE, lasting 3.5 weeks, integrated ACT, physical training, and work-related problem-solving. In contrast, O-ACT mainly offered six weekly 2.5 h group sessions of ACT. We measured outcomes using registry data for days on medical benefits and calculated costs of lost production. Our analysis included regression analyses to examine differences in sickness absence days, logistic general estimating equations for repeated events, and generalized linear models to assess differences in costs of lost production. RESULTS: Unadjusted regression analyses showed 80 fewer days of sickness absence in the 7-year follow-up for I-MORE compared to O-ACT (95% CI - 264 to 104), with an adjusted difference of 114 fewer days (95% CI - 298 to 71). The difference in costs of production loss in favour of I-MORE was 27,048 euros per participant (95% CI - 35,009 to 89,104). CONCLUSIONS: I-MORE outperformed O-ACT in reducing sickness absence and production loss costs during seven years of follow-up, but due to a limited sample size the results were unprecise. Considering the potential for substantial societal cost savings from reduced sick leave, there is a need for larger, long-term studies to evaluate return-to-work interventions.

Economic Evaluation of Inpatient Multimodal Occupational Rehabilitation vs. Outpatient Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Sick-Listed Workers with Musculoskeletal- or Common Mental Disorders.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of inpatient multimodal occupational rehabilitation (I-MORE) compared to outpatient acceptance and commitment therapy (O-ACT) for individuals sick listed due to musculoskeletal- or common mental disorders during two-years of follow-up. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation with a societal perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial with 24 months follow-up. Individuals sick listed 2 to 12 months were randomized to I-MORE (n = 85) or O-ACT (n = 79). The outcome was number of working days. Healthcare use and sick leave data were obtained by registry data. RESULTS: Total healthcare costs during the 24 months was 12,057 euros (95% CI 9,181 to 14,933) higher for I-MORE compared to O-ACT, while the difference in production loss was 14,725 euros (95% CI -1,925 to 31,375) in favour of I-MORE. A difference of 43 (95% CI -6 to 92) workdays, in favour of I-MORE, gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 278 euros for one workday, less than the cost of one day production (339 euros). Net societal benefit was 2,667 euros during two years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable intervention costs, the lower production loss resulted in I-MORE being cost-effective when compared to O-ACT. Based on economic arguments, I-MORE should be implemented as a treatment alternative for individuals on long-term sick leave. However, more research on subgroup effects and further follow-up of participants' permanent disability pension awards are warranted.