↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of psychoeducation in reducing sickness absence and improving mental health in individuals at risk of having a mental disorder: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
Effectiveness of psychoeducation in reducing sickness absence and improving mental health in individuals at risk of having a mental disorder: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2087-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pernille Pedersen, Hans Jørgen Søgaard, Merete Labriola, Ellen A. Nohr, Chris Jensen

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of psychoeducation on return to work as an adjunct to standard case management in individuals on sick leave at risk of having a mental disorder. The participants could have different diagnoses but were all at risk of having a mental disorder. Between 2012 and 2014, 430 participants on sick leave were randomly allocated to either an intervention or control group. The psychoeducation consisted of 2-h sessions once a week for 6 weeks. The sessions focused on stress and work life and was based on problem-solving techniques and coping strategies. The main outcome, the relative risk (RR) of a full return to work based on register data from the job centres, was determined during the first 3 and 6 months after participation in the psychoeducation programme. At baseline and at 3 and 6 months after the intervention, the participants received a questionnaire on psychological symptoms, mental health-related quality of life, and locus of control. During the first 6 months after inclusion, the two groups had almost the same RR of a full return to work (RR:0.97, 95 % CI: 0.78;1.21), but during the first 3 months, the individuals in the intervention group had a significantly higher risk of not having fully returned to work (RR:0.68, 95 % CI:0.47;0.98). The individuals in the intervention group who had participated in at least four of the six psychoeducational sessions returned to work considerably slower at both time points than did the control group. The intervention did not decrease the level of psychological symptoms or improve mental health-related quality of life; however, individuals in the intervention group improved their scores on internal locus of control at both 3 and 6 months. Offering psychoeducation to individuals on sick leave at risk of having a mental disorder had no influence on the chance of a full return to work during the first 6 months; however, it did result in a higher relative risk of not returning to work after 3 months. Therefore, we do not recommend offering psychoeducation in this form to facilitate return to work. Clinical Trial.gov NCT01637363 . Registered 6 July 2012.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 48 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 18%
Psychology 26 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 15%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 53 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,432,593
of 23,646,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,920
of 15,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,232
of 265,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#77
of 312 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,646,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 265,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 312 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.