↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of 40-hour versus 100-hour vocational rehabilitation on work participation for workers on sick leave due to subacute or chronic musculoskeletal pain: study protocol for a…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of 40-hour versus 100-hour vocational rehabilitation on work participation for workers on sick leave due to subacute or chronic musculoskeletal pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0861-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timo T. Beemster, Judith M. van Velzen, Coen A.M. van Bennekom, Monique H.W. Frings-Dresen, Michiel F. Reneman

Abstract

Although vocational rehabilitation is a widely advocated intervention for workers on sick leave due to subacute or chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain, the optimal dosage of effective and cost-effective vocational rehabilitation remains unknown. The objective of this paper is to describe the design of a noninferiority trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 40-h multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation compared with 100-h multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation on work participation for workers on sick leave due to subacute or chronic musculoskeletal pain. A noninferiority study design will be applied. The study population consists of workers who are on part-time or full-time sick leave due to subacute or chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain. Two multidisciplinary vocational rehabilitation programs following the bio-psychosocial approach will be evaluated in this study: 40-h vocational rehabilitation and 100-h vocational rehabilitation, both delivered over a maximum of 15 weeks. The 100-h vocational rehabilitation comprises five modules: work participation coordination, graded activity, cognitive behavioral therapy, group education, and relaxation. The 40-h vocational rehabilitation comprises work participation coordination and a well-reasoned choice from the other four modules. Four rehabilitation centers will participate in this study, each delivering both interventions. Patients will be randomized into one of the interventions, stratified for the duration of sick leave (<6 weeks or ≥6 weeks) and type of sick leave (part-time or full-time). The primary outcome is work participation, measured by self-reported sick leave days, and will be assessed at baseline, mid-term, discharge, and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes are work ability, disability, quality of life, and physical functioning and will be assessed at baseline, discharge, and at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Cost outcomes are absenteeism, presenteeism, healthcare usage, and travelling costs. Cost-effectiveness will be evaluated from the societal and employer perspectives. The results obtained from this study will be useful for vocational rehabilitation practice and will provide stakeholders with relevant insights into two versions of vocational rehabilitation. Dutch Trial Register identifier: NTR4362 (registered 17 March 2014).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 237 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 14%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 69 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 14%
Social Sciences 18 8%
Psychology 17 7%
Sports and Recreations 9 4%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 81 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#4,992,163
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#34
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,425
of 276,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#15
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one scored the same or higher as 11 of them.
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 276,389 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.