↓ Skip to main content

A participatory supportive return to work program for workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to a common mental disorder: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A participatory supportive return to work program for workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to a common mental disorder: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4079-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lieke Lammerts, Johanna M. van Dongen, Frederieke G. Schaafsma, Willem van Mechelen, Johannes R. Anema

Abstract

Mental disorders are associated with high costs for productivity loss, sickness absence and unemployment. A participatory supportive return to work (RTW) program was developed in order to improve RTW among workers without an employment contract, sick-listed due to a common mental disorder. The program contained a participatory approach, integrated care and direct placement in a competitive job. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of this new program, compared to usual care. In addition, its return on investment was evaluated. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month randomized controlled trial. A total of 186 participants was randomly allocated to the new program (n = 94) or to usual care (n = 92). Effect measures were the duration until sustainable RTW in competitive employment and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Costs included intervention costs, medical costs and absenteeism costs. Registered data of the Dutch Social Security Agency were used to assess the duration until sustainable RTW, intervention costs and absenteeism costs. QALYs and medical costs were assessed using three- or six-monthly questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations. Cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis were conducted from the societal perspective. A return on investment analysis was conducted from the social insurer's perspective. Various sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results. The new program had no significant effect on the duration until sustainable RTW and QALYs gained. Intervention costs and medical costs were significantly higher in the intervention group. From the societal perspective, the maximum probability of cost-effectiveness for duration until sustainable RTW was 0.64 at a willingness to pay of about €10 000/day, and 0.27 for QALYs gained, regardless of the willingness to pay. From the social insurer's perspective, the probability of financial return was 0.18. From the societal perspective, the new program was neither cost-effective in improving sustainable RTW nor in gaining QALYs. From the social insurer's perspective, the program did not result in a positive financial return. Therefore, the present study provided no evidence to support its implementation. The trial was listed at the Dutch Trial Register (NTR) under NTR3563 on August 7, 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Psychology 7 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 25 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,790,128
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,869
of 14,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,800
of 420,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#158
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,286 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.