Protocol for the effect evaluation of independent medical evaluation after six months sick leave: a randomized controlled trial of independent medical evaluation versus treatment as usual in Norway

Elisabeth Husabo, Karin Monstad, Tor Helge Holmås, Irene Oyeflaten, Erik L Werner, Silje Maeland, Elisabeth Husabo, Karin Monstad, Tor Helge Holmås, Irene Oyeflaten, Erik L Werner, Silje Maeland

Abstract

Background: It has been discussed whether the relationship between a patient on sick leave and his/her general practitioner (GP) is too close, as this may hinder the GP's objective evaluation of need for sick leave. Independent medical evaluation involves an independent physician consulting the patient. This could lead to new perspectives on sick leave and how to follow-up the patient.

Methods/design: The current study is a randomized controlled trial in a Norwegian primary care context, involving an effect evaluation, a cost/benefit analysis, and a qualitative evaluation. Independent medical evaluation will be compared to treatment as usual, i.e., the physicians' and social insurance agencies' current management of long-term sick-listed patients. Individuals aged 18-65 years, sick listed by their GP and on full or partial sick leave for the past 6 months in Hordaland county will be included. Exclusion criteria are pregnancy, cancer, dementia or an ICD-10 diagnosis. A total sample of 3800 will be randomly assigned to either independent medical evaluation or treatment as usual. Official register data will be used to measure the primary outcome; change in sickness benefits at 7, 9 and 12 months. Sick listed in other counties will serve as a second control group, if appropriate under the "common trend" assumption.

Discussion: The Norwegian effect evaluation of independent medical evaluation after 6 months sick leave is a large randomized controlled trial, and the first of its kind, to evaluate this type of intervention as a means of getting people back to work after long-term sickness absence.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02524392 . Registered June 23, 2015.

Keywords: Disability; Disability pension; Family physician; General practice; General practitioner; Primary care; Randomized controlled trial; Sickness absence; Sickness benefits; Social insurance.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow

References

    1. Waddell G, Burton AK, Kendall NAS. Vocational rehabilitation – what works, for whom, and when? Report for the Vocational Rehabilitation Task Group. 2008. . Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
    1. Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ. Research and practice directions in risk for disability prediction and early intervention. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of complex occupational disability claims. New York: Springer; 2005. pp. 523–551.
    1. Brage S, Bragstad T, Sørbø J. Utviklingen i bruk av helserelaterte ytelser 2013. Hva går de sykmeldte til? Arbeid Og Velferd. 2014;2:116–127.
    1. OECD. Sickness, disability and work – breaking the barriers. 2010. . Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
    1. Brage S, Kann IC. Fastlegers sykemeldingspraksis I: Variasjoner: Rikstrygdeverket. 2006. . Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
    1. Brekke KR. Holmås TH, Monstad K, Straume OR. Socioeconomic Status and Physicians’ Treatment Decisions. Discussion paper SAM 12 2015. Norwegian School of Economics. . Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
    1. Carlsen B. Dobbeltmoralens voktere? Intervjuer med fastleger om sykmelding. Tidsskrift for Velferdsforskning. 2008;11(4):259–275.
    1. Uni Research Helse. Legens doble rolle som advokat og portvakt i Fastlegeordningen. Evaluering av fastlegeordningen. . Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
    1. Werner EL, Merkus SL, Mæland S, et al. Physicians assessments of work capacity in patients with severe subjective health complaints: a cross-sectional study on differences between five European countries. BMJ Open. 2016. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011316.
    1. Clifton Jr DW. The functional IME: A linkage of expertise across the disability continuum. Work (Reading, Mass). 2006;26(3):281–5.
    1. Ebrahim S, Sava H, Kunz R, Busse JW. Ethics and legalities associated with independent medical evaluations. Can Med Assoc J. 2014;4:248. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.131509.
    1. Kann IC, Lima IAÅ, Kristoffersen P. Håndheving av aktivitetskravet i Hedmark har redusert sykefraværet. Arbeid Og Velferd. 2014;3:14–33.
    1. Markussen S, Roed K, Schreiner RC. Can Compulsory Dialogues Nudge Sick-Listed Workers Back to Work? IZA Discussion paper no. 9090. 2015. . Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
    1. Boll J, Hertz M, Svarer M, Rosholm M. Evaluering af Aktive–Hurtigere Tilbage. Styrelsen for Arbejdsmarked og Rekruttering. 2010. Arbejdsmarkedsstyrelsen. . Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
    1. Norwegian Online Legal Resources. . Accessed 20 Sept 2016.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅