BackgroundDepression and anxiety are among the largest contributors to the global burden of disease and have negative effects on both the individual and society. Depression and anxiety are very likely to influence the individual’s work ability, and up to 40% of the people on sick leave in Denmark have depression and/or anxiety. There is no clear evidence that treatment alone will provide sufficient support for vocational recovery in this group. Integrated vocational and health care services have shown good effects on return to work in other, similar welfare contexts. The purpose of the IBBIS (Integrated Mental Health Care and Vocational Rehabilitation to Individuals on Sick Leave Due to Anxiety and Depression) interventions is to improve and hasten the process of return to employment for people in Denmark on sick leave because of depression and anxiety.Methods/designThis three-arm, parallel-group, randomized superiority trial has been set up to investigate the effectiveness of the IBBIS mental health care intervention and the integrated IBBIS mental health care and IBBIS vocational rehabilitation intervention for people on sick leave because of depression and/or anxiety in Denmark. The trial has an investigator-initiated multicenter design. A total of 603 patients will be recruited from Danish job centers in 4 municipalities and randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: (1) IBBIS mental health care integrated with IBBIS vocational rehabilitation, (2) IBBIS mental health care and standard vocational rehabilitation, and (3) standard mental health care and standard vocational rehabilitation. The primary outcome is register-based return to work at 12 months. The secondary outcome measures are self-assessed level of depression (Beck Depression Inventory II), anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory), stress symptoms (Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire), work and social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale), and register-based recurrent sickness absence.DiscussionThis study will provide new knowledge on vocational recovery, integrated vocational and health care interventions, and prevention of recurrent sickness absence among people with depression and anxiety. If the effect on return to work is different in the intervention groups, this study can contribute to current knowledge on shared care models for health care and vocational rehabilitation services.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02872051. Retrospectively registered on 15 August 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2272-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate an integrated mental healthcare and vocational rehabilitation intervention to improve and hasten the process of return-to-work of people on sick leave with anxiety and depression.MethodsIn this three-arm, randomised trial, participants were assigned to (1) integrated intervention (INT), (2) improved mental healthcare (MHC) or (3) service as usual (SAU). The primary outcome was time to return-to-work measured at 12-month follow-up. The secondary outcomes were time to return-to-work measured at 6-month follow-up; levels of anxiety, depression, stress symptoms, and social and occupational functioning at 6 months; and return-to-work measured as proportion in work at 12 months.Results631 individuals were randomised. INT yielded a higher proportion in work compared with both MHC (56.2% vs 43.7%, p=0.012) and SAU (56.2% vs 45%, p=0.029) at 12-month follow-up. We found no differences in return-to-work in terms of sick leave duration at either 6-month or 12-month follow-up, with the latter being the primary outcome. No differences in anxiety, depression or functioning between INT, MHC and SAU were identified, but INT and MHC showed lower scores on Cohen’s Perceived Stress Scale compared with SAU at 12-month follow-up.ConclusionsAlthough INT did not hasten the process of return-to-work, it yielded better outcome with regard to proportion in work compared with MHC and SAU. The findings suggest that INT compared with SAU is associated with a few, minor health benefits. Overall, INT yielded slightly better vocational and health outcomes, but the clinical significance of the health advantage is questionable.Trial registration numberNCT02872051.