Exposure-in-vivo containing interventions to improve work functioning of workers with anxiety disorder: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anxiety disorders are associated with functional disability, sickness absence, and decreased productivity. Effective treatments of anxiety disorders can result in remission of symptoms. However the effects on work related outcomes are largely unknown. Exposure in vivo is potentially well fit to improve work-related outcomes. This study systematically reviews the effectiveness of exposure-in-vivo containing interventions in reducing work-related adverse outcomes in workers with anxiety disorders.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic study search was conducted in Medline, Cinahl, Embase and Psycinfo. Two reviewers independently extracted data and from each study assessed the quality of evidence by using the GRADE approach. We performed a meta-analysis if data showed sufficient clinical homogeneity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seven studies containing 11 exposure-in-vivo interventions were included. Four studies were focused on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), two on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and one on a mixed group of OCD and severe phobias. The studies were grouped according to type of anxiety disorder and subsequently according to type of comparisons. For OCD, exposure-in-vivo containing interventions can yield better work-related outcomes compared to medication (SSRIs) and relaxation but not better compared to response prevention. The results on anxiety outcomes were similar. The net contribution of exposure in vivo in two OCD intervention programs is also presented as a meta-analysis and shows significant positive results on work role limitations. The calculated pooled effect size with 95% confidence interval was 0.72 (0.28, 1.15). For PTSD, exposure-in-vivo containing interventions can yield better work-related and anxiety-related outcomes compared to a waiting-list but not better compared to imaginal exposure.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Exposure in vivo as part of an anxiety treatment can reduce work-related adverse outcomes in workers with OCD and PTSD better than various other anxiety treatments or a waiting-list. We recommend that it should be studied how the results of these studies can be transferred to the practice of occupational health professionals and how clinicians can make better use of them to improve work-related outcomes. In future research, priority should be given to high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which exposure-in-vivo containing interventions are applied to a variety of anxiety disorders and compared with other clinical anxiety treatments such as SSRIs. Work-related outcomes, in particular work functioning and sickness absence, need to be assessed with reliable and valid measures.</p

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an exposure-based return-to-work programme for patients on sick leave due to common mental disorders: design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To reduce the duration of sick leave and loss of productivity due to common mental disorders (CMDs), we developed a return-to-work programme to be provided by occupational physicians (OPs) based on the principles of exposure in vivo (RTW-E programme). This study evaluates this programme's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness by comparing it with care as usual (CAU). The three research questions we have are: 1) Is an RTW-E programme more effective in reducing the sick leave of employees with common mental disorders, compared with care as usual? 2) Is an RTW-E programme more effective in reducing sick leave for employees with anxiety disorders compared with employees with other common mental disorders? 3) From a societal perspective, is an RTW-E programme cost-effective compared with care as usual?</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>This study was designed as a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial with a one-year follow-up and randomization on the level of OPs. We aimed for 60 OPs in order to include 200 patients. Patients in the intervention group received the RTW-E programme. Patients in the control group received care as usual. Eligible patients had been on sick leave due to common mental disorders for at least two weeks and no longer than eight weeks. As primary outcome measures, we calculated the time until full return to work and the duration of sick leave. Secondary outcome measures were time until partial return to work, prevalence rate of sick leave at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months' follow-up, and scores of symptoms of distress, anxiety, depression, somatization, and fatigue; work capacity; perceived working conditions; self-efficacy for return to work; coping behaviour; avoidance behaviour; patient satisfaction; and work adaptations. As process measures, we used indices of compliance with the intervention in the intervention group and employee-supervisor communication in both groups. Economic costs were calculated from a societal perspective. The total costs consisted of the costs of consuming health care, costs of production loss due to sick leave and reduced productivity, and out-of-pocket costs of patients for travelling to their OP.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results will be published in 2009. The strengths and weaknesses of the study protocol are discussed.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN72643128</p