↓ Skip to main content

Motivational interviewing in long-term sickness absence: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial followed by qualitative and economic studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
242 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
Motivational interviewing in long-term sickness absence: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial followed by qualitative and economic studies
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5686-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lene Aasdahl, Vegard Stolsmo Foldal, Martin Inge Standal, Roger Hagen, Roar Johnsen, Marit Solbjør, Marius Steiro Fimland, Heidi Fossen, Chris Jensen, Gunnhild Bagøien, Vidar Halsteinli, Egil Andreas Fors

Abstract

Motivational interviewing (MI), mainly used and shown effective in health care (substance abuse, smoking cessation, increasing exercise and other life style changes), is a collaborative conversation (style) about change that could be useful for individuals having problems related to return to work (RTW). The aim of this paper is to describe the design of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of MI on RTW among sick listed persons compared to usual care, in a social security setting. The study is a randomized controlled trial with parallel group design. Individuals between 18 and 60 years who have been sick listed for more than 7 weeks, with a current sick leave status of 50-100%, are identified in the Norwegian National Social Security System and invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria are no employment and pregnancy. Included participants are randomly assigned to the MI intervention or one of two control groups. The MI intervention consists of two MI sessions offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Service (NAV), while the comparative arms consist of a usual care group and a group that receives two extra sessions without MI content (to control for attentional bias). The primary outcome measure is the total number of sickness absence days during 12 months after inclusion, obtained from national registers. Secondary outcomes include time until full sustainable return to work, health-related quality of life and mental health status. In addition, a health economic evaluation, a feasibility/process evaluation and qualitative studies will be performed as part of the study. A previous study has suggested an effect of MI on RTW for sick listed workers with musculoskeletal complaints. The present study will evaluate the effect of MI for all sick listed workers, regardless of diagnosis. The knowledge from this study will potentially be important for policy makers, clinicians and other professionals` practical work. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03212118 (registered July 11, 2017).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 242 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 91 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 40 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 11%
Psychology 19 8%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Sports and Recreations 9 4%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 102 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,954,417
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,307
of 15,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,246
of 328,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#212
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 328,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.