Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of 'motivational interviewing' on sick leave: a randomized controlled trial in a social insurance setting

Lene Aasdahl, M. Standal, Roger Hagen, Marit Solbjør, Gunnhild Bagøien, Heidi Fossen, V. Foldal, J. Bjørngaard et al.

Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 2023

266 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) – a counselling approach offered by caseworkers at the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration (NAV) – on return to work (RTW) for individuals sick-listed for ≥8 weeks due to any diagnoses. MI was compared to usual case management and an active control during 12 months of follow-up. Methods In a randomized clinical trial with three parallel arms, participants were randomized to MI (N=257), usual case management (N=266), or an active control group (N=252). MI consisted of two MI sessions while the active control involved two sessions without MI, both were offered in addition to usual case management. The primary outcome was number of sickness absence days based on registry data. Secondary outcomes included time to sustainable RTW, defined as four consecutive weeks without medical benefits. Results The median number of sickness absence days for the MI group was 73 days [interquartile range (IQR) 31–147], 76 days (35–134) for usual care, and 75 days (34–155) for active control. In total 89%, 88% and 86% of the participants, respectively, achieved sustainable RTW. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for time to sustainable RTW was 1.12 (95% CI 0.90–1.40) for MI compared to usual case management and HR 1.16 (95% CI 0.93–1.44) compared to the active control. Conclusions This study did not provide evidence that MI offered by NAV caseworkers to sick-listed individuals was more effective on RTW…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 266 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free