Purpose To present an overview of the existing evidence on prognostic factors of (recurrent) sickness absence (SA) and return to work (RTW) among workers with a common mental disorder (CMD). This scoping review provides information about determinants for SA and RTW, which could be used to develop better interventions aimed at the prevention of SA and promotion of RTW among workers with a CMD. Methods Relevant articles were identified in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and SINGLE up to October 2016. In order to be included, studies should provide insight into prognostic factors of SA or RTW of workers with a CMD. We classified all factors according to the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Results Our searches identified 2447 possible relevant articles, of which 71 were included for data extraction. There is consistent evidence in ≥3 studies that previous episodes of CMD, higher symptom severity, previous absenteeism, co-morbidity, high job demands, low job control, high job strain, female gender, lower educational level, smoking behavior, and low perceived general health are predictors of SA in people with CMDs. Earlier RTW is consistently predicted by lower symptom severity, having no previous absenteeism, younger age, and positive expectations concerning sick-leave duration or RTW. Conclusions The amount of research on determinants for SA and RTW in workers with CMD has increased dramatically in recent years, although most studies are from the Netherlands and Scandinavia. There are some research gaps identified in this scoping review that need further attention in primary and secondary studies. Based on the summary of the evidence, we provide guidance for policy, practice and research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10926-017-9730-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PurposeBased on information reported in systematic reviews (SRevs), this study aimed to find out whether psychosocial stress at work leads to cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality.MethodsA systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE (until 2014) used a string based on PICOS components. A manual search was followed. Applying the predefined criteria, two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, selected full texts, and validated their quality. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion between reviewers. Studies of low quality were excluded. Contents of enrolled SRevs were extracted by one reviewer; a second reviewer evaluated their accurateness.ResultsThe search resulted in 462 records. Six SRevs based on 81 studies (total population: ~1,468,670) fulfilled the inclusion criteria, four of “very good” (++) and two of “good” (+) quality. Excluded records were filed, and reasons for exclusion were documented in all cases. Different stress models were used to measure the work-related stress; the “demand-control model” was most commonly used. The two enrolled meta-analysis confirmed a modest (1.32, 95 % CI 1.09–1.59; Virtanen et al. 2013) to moderate evidence (1.45, 95 % CI 1.15–1.84; Kivimäki et al. 2006), predominantly among men, for the association between psychosocial stress at work and CV outcomes. Due to lacking information, it was not possible to give evidence on the dose–response relationship.ConclusionsSame to a SRev, an overview of SRev is used to summarize literature and identify areas in which research is needed. This overview can be used to: (a) Disseminate an up-to-date information on work-related stress as a risk factors for CV morbidity and mortality to government, health care providers, workers, and other stakeholders; (b) Encourage governments to better regulate the working conditions and consider work-related psychosocial stress as a hazardous factor that leads to CV diseases or mortality; and (c) Analyze gaps in the literature and provide a summary of research needs.

Occupational exposure limits for Cr(VI) based on excess absolute risks can be derived from published data identified by a systematic literature review.

Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care, Outcome 3 Proportion returning to work medium term (6 months-1 year) by CHD severity.

BackgroundEvidence syntheses, and in particular systematic reviews (SRs), have become one of the cornerstones of evidence-based health care. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool has become the most widely used tool for investigating the methodological quality of SRs and is currently undergoing revision. The objective of this paper is to present insights, challenges and potential solutions from the point of view of a group of assessors, while referring to earlier methodological discussions and debates with respect to AMSTAR.DiscussionOne major drawback of AMSTAR is that it relies heavily on reporting quality rather than on methodological quality. This can be found in several items. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that there are now new methods and procedures that did not exist when AMSTAR was developed. For example, the note to item 1 should now refer to the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Furthermore, item 3 should consider the definition of hand-searching, as the process of reviewing conference proceedings using the search function (e.g. in Microsoft Word or in a PDF file) does not meet the definition set out by the Cochrane Collaboration. Moreover, methods for assessing the quality of the body of evidence have evolved since AMSTAR was developed and should be incorporated into a revised AMSTAR tool.SummaryPotential solutions are presented for each AMSTAR item with the aim of allowing a more thorough assessment of SRs. As the AMSTAR tool is currently undergoing further development, our paper hopes to add to preceding discussions and papers regarding this tool and stimulate further discussion.