Table 1 Similarities and differences between RtW coordination interventions in the Cochrane review and in Finland
Categories | Summary | Judgement |
|---|---|---|
Names | Mostly use of keywords that suggest coordination, only some studies in the review used keywords that did not suggest coordination (such as case management and consultation) | Identical |
Setting | Interventions are mostly situated in European welfare states and can start after a long-term sick leave of the worker In the Cochrane review all workers were at least 4Â weeks on sick leave, but almost half of the Finnish workers had less than 4Â weeks accumulated sick leave and may not have been on sick leave at the time of the RtW meeting | Similar |
Year(s) studied | Data from different but overlapping time spansa, most studies were recent and conducted after the year 2000 | Similar |
Participants | The worker, the employer or a workplace representative, and a physician (most often occupational physician) participate in the intervention. Possibility to participate in the intervention for other healthcare providers (such as occupational health nurse or physiotherapist) and stakeholders (such as occupational safety representative, social worker) | Identical |
Content | No differences: Interventions include:   At least one face-to-face meeting between worker and coordinator, which is often but not always joined by the employer   A workers’ needs assessment that includes a focus on employee's work ability   A collaboratively developed RtW plan which consists of dates, goals and actions for RtW   One person responsible for the implementation of the RtW plan (evaluating the progress and making changes to the RtW plan if appropriate) In practice, the RtW coordination intervention might not always be fully implemented as recommended | Identical |
Durationb | In the review, interventions lasted 3Â months until more than 1Â year. Information about the duration of the intervention in Finland was missing | Unclear |