[Coronary intervention and occupational rehabilitation--a prospective, randomized intervention study]

Occupational advice to help people return to work following lower limb arthroplasty: the OPAL intervention mapping study

BACKGROUND

Hip and knee replacements are regularly carried out for patients who work. There is little evidence about these patients' needs and the factors influencing their return to work. There is a paucity of guidance to help patients return to work after surgery and a need for structured occupational advice to enable them to return to work safely and effectively.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work that is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip or knee replacements. To test the acceptability, practicality and feasibility of this intervention within current care frameworks.

DESIGN

An intervention mapping approach was used to develop the intervention. The research methods employed were rapid evidence synthesis, qualitative interviews with patients and stakeholders, a prospective cohort study, a survey of clinical practice and a modified Delphi consensus process. The developed intervention was implemented and assessed during the final feasibility stage of the intervention mapping process.

SETTING

Orthopaedic departments in NHS secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who were in work and intending to return to work following primary elective hip or knee replacement surgery, health-care professionals and employers.

INTERVENTIONS

Occupational advice intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Development of an occupational advice intervention, fidelity of the developed intervention when delivered in a clinical setting, patient and clinician perspectives of the intervention and preliminary assessments of intervention effectiveness and cost.

RESULTS

A cohort study (154 patients), 110 stakeholder interviews, a survey of practice (152 respondents) and evidence synthesis provided the necessary information to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, a personalised return-to-work plan and co-ordination from the health-care team to support the delivery of 13 patient and 20 staff performance objectives. To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks and employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work co-ordinator) and training resources were created. Feasibility was assessed for 21 of the 26 patients recruited from three NHS trusts. Adherence to the defined performance objectives was 75% for patient performance objectives and 74% for staff performance objectives. The intervention was generally well received, although the short time frame available for implementation and concurrent research evaluation led to some confusion among patients and those delivering the intervention regarding its purpose and the roles and responsibilities of key staff.

LIMITATIONS

Implementation and uptake of the intervention was not standardised and was limited by the study time frame. Evaluation of the intervention involved a small number of patients, which limited the ability to assess it.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed occupational advice intervention supports best practice. Evaluation demonstrated good rates of adherence against defined performance objectives. However, a number of operational and implementation issues require further attention.

FUTURE WORK

The intervention warrants a randomised controlled trial to assess its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery. This research should include the development of a robust implementation strategy to ensure that adoption is sustained.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27426982 and PROSPERO CRD42016045235.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

People with coronary heart disease (CHD) often require prolonged absences from work to convalesce after acute disease events like myocardial infarctions (MI) or revascularisation procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduced functional capacity and anxiety due to CHD may further delay or prevent return to work.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of person- and work-directed interventions aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with coronary heart disease compared to usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, HSELINE, CISDOC, and LILACS through 11 October 2018. We also searched the US National Library of Medicine registry, clinicaltrials.gov, to identify ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining return to work among people with CHD who were provided either an intervention or usual care. Selected studies included only people treated for MI or who had undergone either a CABG or PCI. At least 80% of the study population should have been working prior to the CHD and not at the time of the trial, or study authors had to have considered a return-to-work subgroup. We included studies in all languages. Two review authors independently selected the studies and consulted a third review author to resolve disagreements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses of rates of return to work and time until return to work. We considered the secondary outcomes, health-related quality of life and adverse events among studies where at least 80% of study participants were eligible to return to work.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 39 RCTs (including one cluster- and four three-armed RCTs). We included the return-to-work results of 34 studies in the meta-analyses.Person-directed, psychological counselling versus usual careWe included 11 studies considering return to work following psychological interventions among a subgroup of 615 participants in the meta-analysis. Most interventions used some form of counselling to address participants' disease-related anxieties and provided information on the causes and course of CHD to dispel misconceptions. We do not know if these interventions increase return to work up to six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.40; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at six to 12 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; seven studies; very low-certainty evidence). We also do not know if psychological interventions shorten the time until return to work. Psychological interventions may have little or no effect on the proportion of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; three studies; low-certainty evidence).Person-directed, work-directed counselling versus usual careFour studies examined work-directed counselling. These counselling interventions included advising patients when to return to work based on treadmill testing or extended counselling to include co-workers' fears and misconceptions regarding CHD. Work-directed counselling may result in little to no difference in the mean difference (MD) in days until return to work (MD -7.52 days, 95% CI -20.07 to 5.03 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Work-directed counselling probably results in little to no difference in cardiac deaths (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.39; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Person-directed, physical conditioning interventions versus usual careNine studies examined the impact of exercise programmes. Compared to usual care, we do not know if physical interventions increase return to work up to six months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in return-to-work rates at six to 12 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.20; five studies; low-certainty evidence), and may also result in little to no difference on the rates of patients working after one year (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; two studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in the time needed to return to work (MD -7.86 days, 95% CI -29.46 to 13.74 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions probably do not increase cardiac death rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.80; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Person-directed, combined interventions versus usual careWe included 13 studies considering return to work following combined interventions in the meta-analysis. Combined cardiac rehabilitation programmes may have increased return to work up to six months (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5; four studies; low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no difference on return-to-work rates at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; 10 studies; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if combined interventions increased the proportions of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.37; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Combined interventions probably shortened the time needed until return to work (MD -40.77, 95% CI -67.19 to -14.35; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Combining interventions probably results in little to no difference in reinfarctions (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.40; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Work-directed, interventionsWe found no studies exclusively examining strictly work-directed interventions at the workplace.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined interventions may increase return to work up to six months and probably reduce the time away from work. Otherwise, we found no evidence of either a beneficial or harmful effect of person-directed interventions. The certainty of the evidence for the various interventions and outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. Return to work was typically a secondary outcome of the studies, and as such, the results pertaining to return to work were often poorly reported. Adhering to RCT reporting guidelines could greatly improve the evidence of future research. A research gap exists regarding controlled trials of work-directed interventions, health-related quality of life within the return-to-work process, and adverse effects.

A systematic review of interventions to promote work participation in older workers

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of interventions aimed at promoting work participation in older workers.

METHODS

We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and a best evidence synthesis that ranked evidence as strong, moderate, limited, or insufficient.

RESULTS

Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2014. Evidence from 14 studies were synthesized in 4 different intervention categories: multi-component, exercise, medication and other interventions. There was moderate evidence that work participation was improved by multi-component interventions encompassing at least two of three components (health service delivery, coordination of services, and work modifications). There was not enough evidence to recommend the other interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is a vast body of research on work participation of older workers, there are only a few high quality intervention studies aimed at improving work participation in this population. We recommend that multi-component interventions could be considered for implementation by practitioners to help improve work participation in older workers.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

With a moderate level of evidence, multi-component interventions could be considered for use in practice if practitioners deem it suitable for their setting. There is not enough evidence to recommend exercise interventions, pharmaceutical interventions, different types of surgeries, patient education or work accommodation alone to improve work participation. However, the lack of evidence should not be considered, as absence of effect and practitioners should continue to be creative in developing solutions.

Occupational therapy and return to work: a systematic literature review

Background

The primary aim of this review study was to gather evidence on the effectiveness in terms of return to work (RTW) of occupational therapy interventions (OTIs) in rehabilitation patients with non-congenital disorders. A secondary aim was to be able to select the most efficient OTI.

Methods

A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed papers was conducted using electronic databases (Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Ebsco, Medline (Pubmed), and PsycInfo). The search focussed on randomised controlled trials and cohort studies published in English from 1980 until September 2010. Scientific validity of the studies was assessed.

Results

Starting from 1532 papers with pertinent titles, six studies met the quality criteria. Results show systematic reviewing of OTIs on RTW was challenging due to varying populations, different outcome measures, and poor descriptions of methodology. There is evidence that OTIs as part of rehabilitation programs, increase RTW rates, although the methodological evidence of most studies is weak.

Conclusions

Analysis of the selected papers indicated that OTIs positively influence RTW; two studies described precisely what the content of their OTI was. In order to identify the added value of OTIs on RTW, studies with well-defined OT intervention protocols are necessary.