Andreas Hoff, Anders Bo Bojesen, Lene Falgaard Eplov
{"title":"丹麦艾比斯针对患有常见精神障碍的因病缺勤者的试验:比较随机试验和真实世界数据的第四阶段前瞻性研究。","authors":"Andreas Hoff, Anders Bo Bojesen, Lene Falgaard Eplov","doi":"10.5334/ijic.7562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In two randomized controlled trials (RCT) we tested the efficacy of a novel integrated vocational rehabilitation and mental healthcare intervention, coined INT, for sickness absentees with common mental disorders. The aim was to improve vocational outcomes compared to Service As Usual (SAU). Contrary to expectations, the delivered intervention caused worse outcomes within some diagnostic groups and some benefits in others. In this phase 4 study, we examined the effectiveness of the intervention in real-world practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this prospective intervention study, we allocated adult sickness absentees with either depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorder to receive INT in a real-world setting in a Danish Municipality. We compared the vocational outcomes of this group to a matched group who received INT as a part of the RCTs, after randomization to the intervention group herein. Primary outcome was return to work at any point within 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the real-world group, 151 participants received INT during 2019. From the randomized trials, 302 matched participants who received INT between 2016-2018 were included. On the primary outcome - return to work within 12 months - the real-word group fared worse (48.3 vs 64.6 %, OR 0.54 [95%CI: 0.37-0.79], p = 0.001). Across most other vocational outcomes, a similar pattern of statistically significant poorer outcomes in the real-world group was observed: Lower number of weeks in work and lower proportion in work at 12 months (42.3% vs. 58.3% (p = 0.002)).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The real-word group showed significantly worse vocational outcomes. Like in many other studies of complex interventions, implementation was difficult in the original randomized trials and perhaps even more difficult in the less structured real-world setting. Since the intervention was less effective for some groups compared to SAU in the original trial, this negative effect may be even more pronounced in a real-world setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":14049,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Integrated Care","volume":"24 3","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11276403/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Danish Ibbis Trials for Sickness Absentees with Common Mental Disorders: A Phase 4 Prospective Study Comparing Randomized Trial and Real-World Data.\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Hoff, Anders Bo Bojesen, Lene Falgaard Eplov\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/ijic.7562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In two randomized controlled trials (RCT) we tested the efficacy of a novel integrated vocational rehabilitation and mental healthcare intervention, coined INT, for sickness absentees with common mental disorders. The aim was to improve vocational outcomes compared to Service As Usual (SAU). Contrary to expectations, the delivered intervention caused worse outcomes within some diagnostic groups and some benefits in others. In this phase 4 study, we examined the effectiveness of the intervention in real-world practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this prospective intervention study, we allocated adult sickness absentees with either depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorder to receive INT in a real-world setting in a Danish Municipality. We compared the vocational outcomes of this group to a matched group who received INT as a part of the RCTs, after randomization to the intervention group herein. Primary outcome was return to work at any point within 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the real-world group, 151 participants received INT during 2019. From the randomized trials, 302 matched participants who received INT between 2016-2018 were included. On the primary outcome - return to work within 12 months - the real-word group fared worse (48.3 vs 64.6 %, OR 0.54 [95%CI: 0.37-0.79], p = 0.001). Across most other vocational outcomes, a similar pattern of statistically significant poorer outcomes in the real-world group was observed: Lower number of weeks in work and lower proportion in work at 12 months (42.3% vs. 58.3% (p = 0.002)).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The real-word group showed significantly worse vocational outcomes. Like in many other studies of complex interventions, implementation was difficult in the original randomized trials and perhaps even more difficult in the less structured real-world setting. Since the intervention was less effective for some groups compared to SAU in the original trial, this negative effect may be even more pronounced in a real-world setting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Integrated Care\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11276403/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Integrated Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.7562\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Integrated Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.7562","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介在两项随机对照试验(RCT)中,我们测试了一种新型综合职业康复和心理保健干预措施(INT)的疗效,该措施针对的是患有常见精神障碍的病假人员。与 "常规服务"(SAU)相比,干预的目的是改善职业结果。与预期相反的是,所实施的干预措施在某些诊断群体中造成了较差的结果,而在另一些群体中则带来了一些益处。在这项第四阶段研究中,我们考察了干预措施在实际操作中的有效性:在这项前瞻性干预研究中,我们将患有抑郁症、焦虑症或适应障碍的成年病假者分配到丹麦一个市镇,让他们在实际环境中接受 INT 治疗。在随机分配到本研究的干预组后,我们将该组患者的职业结果与接受 INT 的匹配组进行了比较。主要结果是在 12 个月内的任何时候重返工作岗位:在真实世界组中,有 151 名参与者在 2019 年期间接受了 INT 治疗。在随机试验中,有 302 名匹配的参与者在 2016-2018 年间接受了 INT 治疗。在主要结果--12个月内重返工作岗位--方面,实词组表现较差(48.3% vs 64.6%,OR 0.54 [95%CI:0.37-0.79],P = 0.001)。在大多数其他职业结果中,我们也观察到了类似的情况,即真实世界组的结果在统计学上显著较差:工作周数和 12 个月时的工作比例均较低(42.3% 对 58.3% (p = 0.002)):讨论:实词组的职业结果明显较差。与许多其他复杂干预措施的研究一样,在最初的随机试验中实施干预措施是很困难的,而在结构化程度较低的真实世界环境中实施干预措施可能更加困难。由于在最初的试验中,与 SAU 相比,干预对某些组的效果较差,因此在现实环境中,这种负面影响可能会更加明显。
The Danish Ibbis Trials for Sickness Absentees with Common Mental Disorders: A Phase 4 Prospective Study Comparing Randomized Trial and Real-World Data.
Introduction: In two randomized controlled trials (RCT) we tested the efficacy of a novel integrated vocational rehabilitation and mental healthcare intervention, coined INT, for sickness absentees with common mental disorders. The aim was to improve vocational outcomes compared to Service As Usual (SAU). Contrary to expectations, the delivered intervention caused worse outcomes within some diagnostic groups and some benefits in others. In this phase 4 study, we examined the effectiveness of the intervention in real-world practice.
Method: In this prospective intervention study, we allocated adult sickness absentees with either depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorder to receive INT in a real-world setting in a Danish Municipality. We compared the vocational outcomes of this group to a matched group who received INT as a part of the RCTs, after randomization to the intervention group herein. Primary outcome was return to work at any point within 12 months.
Results: In the real-world group, 151 participants received INT during 2019. From the randomized trials, 302 matched participants who received INT between 2016-2018 were included. On the primary outcome - return to work within 12 months - the real-word group fared worse (48.3 vs 64.6 %, OR 0.54 [95%CI: 0.37-0.79], p = 0.001). Across most other vocational outcomes, a similar pattern of statistically significant poorer outcomes in the real-world group was observed: Lower number of weeks in work and lower proportion in work at 12 months (42.3% vs. 58.3% (p = 0.002)).
Discussion: The real-word group showed significantly worse vocational outcomes. Like in many other studies of complex interventions, implementation was difficult in the original randomized trials and perhaps even more difficult in the less structured real-world setting. Since the intervention was less effective for some groups compared to SAU in the original trial, this negative effect may be even more pronounced in a real-world setting.
期刊介绍:
Established in 2000, IJIC’s mission is to promote integrated care as a scientific discipline. IJIC’s primary purpose is to examine critically the policy and practice of integrated care and whether and how this has impacted on quality-of-care, user experiences, and cost-effectiveness.
The journal regularly publishes conference supplements and special themed editions. To find out more contact Managing Editor, Susan Royer.
The Journal is supported by the International Foundation for Integrated Care (IFIC).