Abstract:Background: To limit long-term sick leave and associated consequences, insurers, healthcare providers and employers provide programmes to facilitate disabled people's return to work. These programmes include a variety of coordinated and individualised interventions. Despite the increasing popularity of such programmes, their benefits remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the long-term effectiveness of return-to-work coordination programmes compared to usual practice in workers at risk for long-term disability. Objectives: To assess the effects of return-to-work coordination programmes versus usual practice for workers on sick leave or disability. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 November 2016. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled workers absent from work for at least four weeks and randomly assigned them to return-to-work coordination programmes or usual practice. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias from eligible trials. We contacted authors for additional data where required. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence. Main results: We identified 14 studies from nine countries that enrolled 12,568 workers. Eleven studies focused on musculoskeletal problems, two on mental health and one on both. Most studies (11 of 14) followed workers 12 months or longer. Risk of bias was low in 10 and high in 4 studies, but findings were not sensitive to their exclusion.We found no benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on return-to-work outcomes.For short-term follow-up of six months, we found no effect on time to return to work (hazard ratio (HR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.88, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (mean difference (MD) -16.18 work days per year, 95% CI -32.42 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work, that is, regardless of whether they had remained at work until last follow-up (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19, very low-quality evidence).For long-term follow-up of 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD -14.84 work days per year, 95% CI -38.56 to 8.88, low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.15, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.09, moderate-quality evidence).For very long-term follow-up of longer than 12 months, we found no effect on time to return to work (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), cumulative sickness absence (MD 7.00 work days per year, 95% CI -15.17 to 29.17, moderate-quality evidence), the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07, low-quality evidence) or on the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02, low-quality evidence).We found only small benefits for return-to-work coordination programmes on patient-reported outcomes. All differences were below the minimal clinically important difference (MID). Authors' conclusions: Offering return-to-work coordination programmes for workers on sick leave for at least four weeks results in no benefits when compared to usual practice. We found no significant differences for the outcomes time to return to work, cumulative sickness absence, the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up or the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work at short-term, long-term or very long-term follow-up. For patient-reported outcomes, we found only marginal effects below the MID. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate across all outcomes.

Experiences of rehabilitation coordination among people on sick leave with mental health problems

Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the contributions of rehabilitation coordinators to patients in Swedish psychiatric care: a qualitative descriptive study

Collaboration in the return-to-work process after sick leave due to common mental disorders: a qualitative study of stakeholders' views on goals and roles

Positive encounters with rehabilitation professionals reported by persons with experience of sickness absence

Rehabilitation coordinator – managers' experiences of a new function in health care

Professionals' experiences of what affects health outcomes in the sick leave and rehabilitation process-A qualitative study from primary care level

Navigating work and life– a qualitative exploration of managers’ and employees’ views of return-to-work after sick leave due to common mental disorders

Cooperation in Return-to-work Interventions for Common Mental Disorders: An Ideal Theory Analysis of Actors, Goals, and Ethical Obstacles

Physiotherapists' and occupational therapists' experiences with cross-sectoral coordination of rehabilitation for people with mild stroke – a qualitative interview study

A systems perspective on gaps in the person-centered sick leave and rehabilitation process: a Swedish interview study

Experiences of interventions and rehabilitation activities in connection with return-to-work from a gender perspective. A focus group study among employees on sick leave for common mental disorders

Negotiating Safety: Facilitation of Return to Work for Individuals Employed in High-Risk Occupations

Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave

Restoring confidence in return to work: A qualitative study of the experiences of persons with exhaustion disorder after a dialogue-based workplace intervention

Who Returns to work? Exploring the Role of Interpersonal Problems in Occupational Rehabilitation

The Work Ability Divide: Holistic and Reductionistic Approaches in Swedish Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Teams

Return to Work Trajectories of Swedish Employees on Sick-Leave Due to Common Mental Disorders

Factors affecting patients' journey with primary healthcare services during mental health‐related sick leave

The effect of team collaboration and continuity of care on health and disability among rehabilitation patients: a longitudinal survey-based study from western Norway

Does employer involvement in primary health care enhance return to work for patients with stress-related mental disorders? a cluster randomized controlled trial