Intervention Criteria for inclusion of intervention:

1. Objective • To assess the effectiveness of Workplace Disability Management (WPDM) Programmes promoting Return-to-Work (RTW) • Compare WPDM-programmes to no treatment, treatment as usual or alternative intervention • If possible examine components of WPDM-programmes which appear more highly related to positive outcome • Look at the existing rehabilitation and management literature and get an understanding of the WPDM research and its development, research potentials and needed research areas • METHODS • Criteria for selection of studies: • Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster randomisation and quasi randomised study designs • Non randomised control study designs (quasi-experimental designs) • Single group study designs with before and after measures • Intervention • Criteria for inclusion of intervention: • Characterised as an ‘onsite’ WPDM or RTW-programme • Provided by the employer or the employer in collaboration with key-players in the workplace • Addressing the duration or extent of an inability to work due to physical injury, illness or mental health disorders • Implemented within the workplace setting • Participants • Criteria for inclusion of participants: • Employees on sick-leave with an inability to work due to physical injury, illness or mental health disorders • Employees from the public and private sector • OUTCOMES • The primary outcomes: • Return to work measured dichotomously as first return to work • Duration of sickness absence measured continuously via time-to-event data • Reduction in lost days from work measured cumulatively as the duration of all days lost from work • The secondary outcomes: • The functional health consequences • Return to fulltime or part-time work • Whether RTW is completed at the current employer or completed in a job with a new employer • Relapse to sickness absence in follow-up • Preliminary results • The initial search targeted 12 databases and identified 14.716 potential articles • 256 abstracts were included for second level screening. Second level screening is currently conducted • Results is expected ultimo nov./dec. 2010 WorkplaceDisability Management Programmes promotingreturn to workA Campbell reviewUlrik Gensby (1,2), Thomas Lund (2), Krystyna Kowalski (3), Madina Saidj (3), Trine Filges (3), Anne-Marie Klint Jørgensen (3), Benjamin C. Amick (4) and Merete Labriola (2)1: Roskilde University (RUC), Denmark2: PreSenter, International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS), Norway3: SFI-Campbell, The Danish National Centre for Social Research (SFI), Denmark4: Institute for Work and Health (IWH), Canada More info This poster is based on a PhD-project; ’Return-to-work from a workplace perspective’. The project is a critical exploration of workplace disability management, inclusion of sick-listed employees in the workplace and sense-making among workplace actors in the return-to-work process. The project consists of two empirical parts. The first part is a systematic literature review and the second part is an exploratory case-study, in the Danish health care sector, inspired by participatory action research. Contact PhD.-fellow, MSc. Ulrik Gensby ugensby@ruc.dk We define a Workplace Disability Management Programme as: ‘an organisational rehabilitation service provided by the employer, consisting of an integrated set of policies, procedures and programme components, that promote safe and timely return to work within the work environment’ • Why it is important to do this review? • Focusing on the synthesis and development of knowledge that can assist employers in their DM-efforts has several important payoffs with relevance to policy and decision-makers. • Put into practice WPDM-programmes may provide responsive and sustainable organizational policies and practices that can guide ‘on-site’ interventions, internal collaboration and bridge coordination outside the workplace. This may lead to a better use of human resources, prevent prolonged work disability, reduce dependence on sickness and disability benefits and contribute to a healthier and more inclusive work-life. • Furthermore it is necessary to continue to review the available literature as new research is published. This review sets out to serve these purposes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This review is supported by The Campbell Collaboration, SFI-Campbell, International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS) and Roskilde University (RUC)