General hospital psychiatry · 2015
Improving work outcomes of dysthymia (persistent depressive disorder) in an employed population.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Adler David A, Lerner Debra, Visco Zachary L, Greenhill Annabel, Chang Hong, Cymerman Elina, Azocar Francisca, Rogers William H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of a work-focused intervention (WFI) on the work outcomes of employed adults with dysthymia.
METHOD: This subgroup analysis from a randomized controlled trial compares an initial sample of 167 employees (age: ≥45 years), screened for dysthymia using the PC-SAD without current major depressive disorder randomized to WFI (n=85) or usual care (UC) (n=82). Study sites included 19 employers and five additional organizations. Telephone-based WFI counseling (eight, twice monthly 50-min sessions) provided work coaching and modification, care coordination and cognitive behavioral therapy. Adjusted mixed effects models compared the WFI vs. UC group preintervention to 4-month postintervention change in at-work limitations measured by the Work Limitations Questionnaire. Secondary outcome analysis compared the change in self-reported absences and depression symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire PHQ-9 scores).
RESULTS: Work productivity loss scores improved 43.0% in the WFI group vs. 4.8% in UC (difference in change: P<.001). Absence days declined by 58.3% in WFI vs. 0.0% in UC (difference in change: P=.09). Mean PHQ-9 depression symptom severity declined 44.2% in WFI vs. 5.3% in UC (difference in change: P<.001).
CONCLUSION: At 4 months, the WFI was more effective than UC on two of the three outcomes. It could be an important mental and functional health improvement resource for the employed dysthymic population.
METHOD: This subgroup analysis from a randomized controlled trial compares an initial sample of 167 employees (age: ≥45 years), screened for dysthymia using the PC-SAD without current major depressive disorder randomized to WFI (n=85) or usual care (UC) (n=82). Study sites included 19 employers and five additional organizations. Telephone-based WFI counseling (eight, twice monthly 50-min sessions) provided work coaching and modification, care coordination and cognitive behavioral therapy. Adjusted mixed effects models compared the WFI vs. UC group preintervention to 4-month postintervention change in at-work limitations measured by the Work Limitations Questionnaire. Secondary outcome analysis compared the change in self-reported absences and depression symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire PHQ-9 scores).
RESULTS: Work productivity loss scores improved 43.0% in the WFI group vs. 4.8% in UC (difference in change: P<.001). Absence days declined by 58.3% in WFI vs. 0.0% in UC (difference in change: P=.09). Mean PHQ-9 depression symptom severity declined 44.2% in WFI vs. 5.3% in UC (difference in change: P<.001).
CONCLUSION: At 4 months, the WFI was more effective than UC on two of the three outcomes. It could be an important mental and functional health improvement resource for the employed dysthymic population.