Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing on Return to Work in People on Sick Leave Due to Musculoskeletal Disorders
NCT ID: NCT03871712
Last Updated: 2025-03-18
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
450 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2019-04-01
Study Completion Date
2024-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Musculoskeletal disorders are the main causes for sickness absence and disability benefits in Norway and the leading causes of disability worldwide. There is strong evidence that long-term sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders provides a poor prognosis, both in terms of work-related disability, physical and mental health, and health related quality-of-life. To assist people return to work a range of vocational rehabilitation programs exist, but the initiatives have not been able to reduce the number of people who are on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders. In Norway, The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) case-workers have taken such approaches in use, primarily by teaching their employees with user contact in how to use Motivational Interviewing (MI). However, the evidence on the effectiveness of MI on return to work is highly uncertain. The objectives of this project are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of usual case management alone with usual case management plus MI or usual case management plus stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI), on RTW among people on sick leave due to musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. All musculoskeletal diagnoses will be included. A multi-arm randomised controlled trial with 150 participants in each group will be conducted within the NAV system in Norway to evaluate these research questions.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Interdisciplinary Intervention Versus Brief Intervention for Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain
NCT01346423
Musculoskeletal Diseases
COMPLETED
NA
Norwegian Psychomotor Physiotherapy in Patients With Long-lasting Musculoskeletal Pain.
NCT02482792
Physical Disability
COMPLETED
NA
Return to Work in Patients With Chronic Pain
NCT03827174
Chronic Pain
Endometriosis
TERMINATED
NA
Effect of an Outpatient Intervention Program in Patients With Chronic Back or Neck Pain
NCT01981798
Chronic Low Back Pain
Neck Pain
COMPLETED
NA
Interactive Web-based Program and CBT-coaching With Physiotherapy for Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
NCT02378519
Musculoskeletal Pain
UNKNOWN
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The main objective of this project is to evaluate the effectiveness of usual case management plus motivational interviewing (MI), provided by trained Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) case-workers, and usual case management plus a Stratified Vocational Advice Intervention (SVAI), including principles of MI and vocational advice provided by trained physiotherapists, compared to usual case management alone on return to work among people on sick leave due to a musculoskeletal disorder. A multi-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted in order to respond to the following specific research questions:
RQ 1a Is there a difference between usual case management plus MI and usual case management alone in reducing sickness absence days at 6 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 1b Is there a difference between usual case management plus SVAI and usual case management alone in reducing sickness absence days at 6 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 2a Is there a difference between usual case management plus MI and usual case management alone in reducing sickness absence days at 12 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 2b Is there a difference between usual case management plus SVAI and usual case management alone in reducing sickness absence days at 12 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 3a Is there a difference between usual case management plus MI and usual case management alone in time until sustained RTW during 12 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 3b Is there a difference between usual case management plus SVAI and usual case management alone in time until sustained RTW during 12 months of follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 4a Is there a difference in the proportions of participants who receive sick leave benefits each month during 12 months of follow-up between usual case management plus MI compared to usual case management alone?
RQ 4b Is there a difference in the proportion of individuals who receive sick leave benefits each month during 12 months of follow-up between usual case management plus SVAI compared to usual case management alone?
RQ 5a Is there a difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit during 6 months of follow-up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 5b Is there a difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit during 6 months of follow-up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 6a Is there a difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit during 12 months of follow-up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 6b Is there a difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit during 12 months of follow-up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 7a Is there a difference in musculoskeletal health during 12 months of follow up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 7b Is there a difference in musculoskeletal health during 12 months of follow up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
The following hypotheses will be tested:
H 1a There is no difference in number of sickness absence days between participants who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone at 6 months follow-up.
H 1b There is no difference in number of sickness absence days between participants who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone at 6 months follow-up.
H 2a There is no difference in number of sickness absence days between participants who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone at 12 months follow-up.
H 2b There is no difference in number of sickness absence days between participants who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone at 12 months follow-up.
H 3a There is no difference in time until first sustained RTW between participants who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone during 12 months follow-up.
H 3b There is no difference in time until first sustained RTW between participants who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
H 4a There is no difference in the proportions of participants who receive sick leave benefits each month between usual case management plus MI compared to usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
H 4b There is no difference in the proportions of individuals receiving sick leave benefits each month between usual case management plus SVAI compared to usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
H 5a There is no difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit between usual case management plus MI compared to usual case management alone during 6 months of follow up.
H 5b There is no difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit between usual case management plus SVAI compared to usual case management alone during 6 months of follow up.
H 6a There is no difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit between usual case management plus MI compared to usual case management alone during 12 months of follow up.
H 6b There is no difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit between usual case management plus SVAI compared to usual case management alone during 12 months of follow up.
H 7a There is no difference in musculoskeletal health between participants who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
H 7b There is no difference in musculoskeletal health between participants who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
A multi-arm RCT with a full-scale health economic evaluation and mediator analysis will be conducted. In order to avoid contextual contamination effect only NAV offices in which the employees have not received any previous MI training will be included. All eligible participants will be asked to participate.
The head NAV office in Oslo will provide weely lists of persons meeting the eligibility criteria. We will contact eligible people by phone and give information about the study. Elibible persons who are interested will then receive a link to the informed consent and the baseline questionnaire.
MI intervention: In addition to usual case management, the MI group will receive 2 motivational interviews provided by a NAV case-worker. The case-workers will be educated and mentored throughout the study period. The first MI will be face-to-face, while the second may by phone, but preferable face-to-face.The interviews will be given in week 8/9 of the sick leave period, and then again after approximately 2 weeks.
SVAI intervention: In addition to usual case management, the SVAI group will be followed up by trained physical therapists. This group will be stratified into risk groups for long term sick leave; an "at risk group" and a "high risk group". The at risk group will receive 1-2 phone calls with emphasis on identifying obstacles for return to work, and solutions for resolving these obstacles. The high risk group will be followed up 3-4 times. The first follow-up is by phone, the remaining follow-ups can be either by phone or face to face meetings and can include a workplace visit. The SVAI intervention will end before week 26 of the participants' sick leave period.
Usual case management: The Norwegian welfare state has a system for following up people on sick leave, including a follow-up plan developed by the worker and the employer by week 4 of the sick leave period, a dialogue meeting between the worker and the employer by week 7, and a second dialogue Meeting including a NAV caseworker, by week 26.
The study flow:
Baseline recruitment will occur by week 8 of the sick leave period. The two interventions will start immediately after randomization and baseline assessments. The questionnaires will be sent electronic through a secure system from University of Oslo at baseline, and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.
A pilot study will be conducted prior to start of the RCT to test the study protocol including the recruitment procedure, the randomisation procedure, the information flow between researchers, physical therapists, NAV case workers and study participants, and the interventions (MI and SVAI). The pilot study will end by the first 100 included participants (August 31. 2019). The participants in the pilot study will be included in the RCT as long as the protocol will not be changed with respect to the scientific method and research questions (internal pilot study).
A fidelity study of the MI and SVAI interventions will be conducted to measure how well the trained personnel is using the methods and interventions as intended. For the MI arm, a developed instrument (Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Coding Manual 4.2.1) will be used to score the feasibility from audio recordings of all NAV case-workers who do the MI intervention. For the SVAI intervention, feasibility will be measured by both audiotaping and from the telephone script/journal that the SVAI physiotherapists fill out during the talk with the study participant. The investigators plan to do 20-25 audiotapes of the 5 SVAI physiotherapists.
RQ 1a Is there a difference between usual case management plus MI and usual case management alone in reducing sickness absence days at 6 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 1b Is there a difference between usual case management plus SVAI and usual case management alone in reducing sickness absence days at 6 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 2a Is there a difference between usual case management plus MI and usual case management alone in reducing sickness absence days at 12 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 2b Is there a difference between usual case management plus SVAI and usual case management alone in reducing sickness absence days at 12 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 3a Is there a difference between usual case management plus MI and usual case management alone in time until sustained RTW during 12 months follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 3b Is there a difference between usual case management plus SVAI and usual case management alone in time until sustained RTW during 12 months of follow-up among individuals who have been on sick leave for \>7 weeks due to a musculoskeletal disorder?
RQ 4a Is there a difference in the proportions of participants who receive sick leave benefits each month during 12 months of follow-up between usual case management plus MI compared to usual case management alone?
RQ 4b Is there a difference in the proportion of individuals who receive sick leave benefits each month during 12 months of follow-up between usual case management plus SVAI compared to usual case management alone?
RQ 5a Is there a difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit during 6 months of follow-up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 5b Is there a difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit during 6 months of follow-up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 6a Is there a difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit during 12 months of follow-up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 6b Is there a difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit during 12 months of follow-up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 7a Is there a difference in musculoskeletal health during 12 months of follow up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
RQ 7b Is there a difference in musculoskeletal health during 12 months of follow up between individuals on sick leave with musculoskeletal disorders who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone?
The following hypotheses will be tested:
H 1a There is no difference in number of sickness absence days between participants who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone at 6 months follow-up.
H 1b There is no difference in number of sickness absence days between participants who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone at 6 months follow-up.
H 2a There is no difference in number of sickness absence days between participants who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone at 12 months follow-up.
H 2b There is no difference in number of sickness absence days between participants who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone at 12 months follow-up.
H 3a There is no difference in time until first sustained RTW between participants who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone during 12 months follow-up.
H 3b There is no difference in time until first sustained RTW between participants who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
H 4a There is no difference in the proportions of participants who receive sick leave benefits each month between usual case management plus MI compared to usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
H 4b There is no difference in the proportions of individuals receiving sick leave benefits each month between usual case management plus SVAI compared to usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
H 5a There is no difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit between usual case management plus MI compared to usual case management alone during 6 months of follow up.
H 5b There is no difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit between usual case management plus SVAI compared to usual case management alone during 6 months of follow up.
H 6a There is no difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit between usual case management plus MI compared to usual case management alone during 12 months of follow up.
H 6b There is no difference in cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit between usual case management plus SVAI compared to usual case management alone during 12 months of follow up.
H 7a There is no difference in musculoskeletal health between participants who receive usual case management plus MI compared to those who receive usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
H 7b There is no difference in musculoskeletal health between participants who receive usual case management plus SVAI compared to those who receive usual case management alone during 12 months of follow-up.
A multi-arm RCT with a full-scale health economic evaluation and mediator analysis will be conducted. In order to avoid contextual contamination effect only NAV offices in which the employees have not received any previous MI training will be included. All eligible participants will be asked to participate.
The head NAV office in Oslo will provide weely lists of persons meeting the eligibility criteria. We will contact eligible people by phone and give information about the study. Elibible persons who are interested will then receive a link to the informed consent and the baseline questionnaire.
MI intervention: In addition to usual case management, the MI group will receive 2 motivational interviews provided by a NAV case-worker. The case-workers will be educated and mentored throughout the study period. The first MI will be face-to-face, while the second may by phone, but preferable face-to-face.The interviews will be given in week 8/9 of the sick leave period, and then again after approximately 2 weeks.
SVAI intervention: In addition to usual case management, the SVAI group will be followed up by trained physical therapists. This group will be stratified into risk groups for long term sick leave; an "at risk group" and a "high risk group". The at risk group will receive 1-2 phone calls with emphasis on identifying obstacles for return to work, and solutions for resolving these obstacles. The high risk group will be followed up 3-4 times. The first follow-up is by phone, the remaining follow-ups can be either by phone or face to face meetings and can include a workplace visit. The SVAI intervention will end before week 26 of the participants' sick leave period.
Usual case management: The Norwegian welfare state has a system for following up people on sick leave, including a follow-up plan developed by the worker and the employer by week 4 of the sick leave period, a dialogue meeting between the worker and the employer by week 7, and a second dialogue Meeting including a NAV caseworker, by week 26.
The study flow:
Baseline recruitment will occur by week 8 of the sick leave period. The two interventions will start immediately after randomization and baseline assessments. The questionnaires will be sent electronic through a secure system from University of Oslo at baseline, and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.
A pilot study will be conducted prior to start of the RCT to test the study protocol including the recruitment procedure, the randomisation procedure, the information flow between researchers, physical therapists, NAV case workers and study participants, and the interventions (MI and SVAI). The pilot study will end by the first 100 included participants (August 31. 2019). The participants in the pilot study will be included in the RCT as long as the protocol will not be changed with respect to the scientific method and research questions (internal pilot study).
A fidelity study of the MI and SVAI interventions will be conducted to measure how well the trained personnel is using the methods and interventions as intended. For the MI arm, a developed instrument (Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Coding Manual 4.2.1) will be used to score the feasibility from audio recordings of all NAV case-workers who do the MI intervention. For the SVAI intervention, feasibility will be measured by both audiotaping and from the telephone script/journal that the SVAI physiotherapists fill out during the talk with the study participant. The investigators plan to do 20-25 audiotapes of the 5 SVAI physiotherapists.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Musculoskeletal Disease
Musculoskeletal Pain
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
A multi-arm randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups and one control group doing as usual (ordinary NAV practice).
The allocation will be prepared with block randomisation for risk of long term sick leave as predicted by the Orebro Screening Questionnaire and The Keele STarT MSK Tool. Preliminary data suggests a low/medium risk group (80% of the recruited participants) and a high risk group (20%). These numbers were calculated in another study of individuals on sick leave in Norway.
The allocation will be prepared with block randomisation for risk of long term sick leave as predicted by the Orebro Screening Questionnaire and The Keele STarT MSK Tool. Preliminary data suggests a low/medium risk group (80% of the recruited participants) and a high risk group (20%). These numbers were calculated in another study of individuals on sick leave in Norway.
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
DOUBLE
Investigators
Outcome Assessors
In the written consent, the three groups will be described. Thus the participants will understand which group they are in after the first telephone call, and consequently not be blinded. The interventions are:
1. Motivational interview by 2 meetings between participant and the NAV case-worker. Both the NAV case-workers and the participants will know that the intervention is motivational interviewing because it is only in this arm a NAV case-worker will do the intervention.
2. Stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI): a physiotherapist will call the study participants, and both the physiotherapist and the participants will know that they are in the SVAI intervention group from the informed consent.
The researchers will be blinded to group allocation throughout the study recruitment and assessment up to the 6-month follow-up.
1. Motivational interview by 2 meetings between participant and the NAV case-worker. Both the NAV case-workers and the participants will know that the intervention is motivational interviewing because it is only in this arm a NAV case-worker will do the intervention.
2. Stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI): a physiotherapist will call the study participants, and both the physiotherapist and the participants will know that they are in the SVAI intervention group from the informed consent.
The researchers will be blinded to group allocation throughout the study recruitment and assessment up to the 6-month follow-up.
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Motivational Interview (MI)
In the MI arm, a NAV case worker will meet the participants after the baseline assessment (electronic questionnaires) and randomisation and conduct the MI. The NAV case-worker will either meet (or call) again after a few weeks (anticipated 2-4 weeks) and conduct another MI.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Motivational interview
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
The participants will be called twice with 2-4 weeks interval after the randomisation. This will be after 8 weeks of sick leave.
Stratified vocational advice intervention (SVAI)
A trained physiotherapist will call the participants after the baseline assessment and randomisation. The SVAI intervention will be stratified due to the participants risk of long term sick leave estimated by the Orebro Screening Questionnaire and The Keele STarT MSK Tool. The low/moderate risk group will receive 1-2 phone calls, and the high risk group will be followed up 2-4 times. The follow-up can include face to face Meetings bewteen the Physical therapist and the participant, and also the employer and general practitioner when needed. The intervention will include an assessment of the participants obstacles for returning to work and help to develop and implement an action plan to overcome obstacles. The physical therapists' will cooperate with other health care providers and employer when needed.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Stratified vocational advice
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
The participants will be called after the randomisation. The amount of calls/meetings will be decided after each call, but with a maximum of 4 for the high risk group. This may include physical meetings.
Usual follow-up
This arm will be the control group receiving usual NAV follow-up. The other two groups will also receive usual NAV follow-up additionally to the interventions.
Group Type
NO_INTERVENTION
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Motivational interview
The participants will be called twice with 2-4 weeks interval after the randomisation. This will be after 8 weeks of sick leave.
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
Stratified vocational advice
The participants will be called after the randomisation. The amount of calls/meetings will be decided after each call, but with a maximum of 4 for the high risk group. This may include physical meetings.
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Vocational advice
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Have musculoskeletal disorders
* Live in South-East Norway
* Have been on sick leave for 8 weeks with a current sick-leave status of 50%-100%
* Have a job to return to
* Live in South-East Norway
* Have been on sick leave for 8 weeks with a current sick-leave status of 50%-100%
* Have a job to return to
Exclusion Criteria
* Have serious somatic or psychological disorders (e.g. cancer, psychotic disorders)
* Have specific disorder requiring specialized, ongoing treatment;
* Are pregnant
* Are self-employed or work free lance
* Have insufficient Norwegian or English speaking or writing skills to participate in group session and fill out questionnaire.
* Have specific disorder requiring specialized, ongoing treatment;
* Are pregnant
* Are self-employed or work free lance
* Have insufficient Norwegian or English speaking or writing skills to participate in group session and fill out questionnaire.
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
67 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Oslo Metropolitan University
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Britt Elin Øiestad
Associate Professor
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Hege Bentzen, PhD
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Oslo Metropolitan Universtiy
Oslo, , Norway
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Norway
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Killingmo RM, Rysstad T, Maas E, Pripp AH, Aanesen F, Tingulstad A, Tveter AT, Oiestad BE, Grotle M. Modifiable prognostic factors of high societal costs among people on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders: a replication study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024 Dec 3;25(1):990. doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-08132-3.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Tingulstad A, Maas ET, Rysstad T, Oiestad BE, Aanesen F, Pripp AH, Van Tulder MW, Grotle M. Six-month cost-effectiveness of adding motivational interviewing or a stratified vocational advice intervention to usual case management for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: the MI-NAV economic evaluation. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2023 Nov 14;18(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12995-023-00394-2.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Cashin AG, Oiestad BE, Aanesen F, Storheim K, Tingulstad A, Rysstad TL, Lee H, McAuley JH, Sowden G, Wynne-Jones G, Tveter AT, Grotle M. Mechanisms of vocational interventions for return to work from musculoskeletal conditions: a mediation analysis of the MI-NAV trial. Occup Environ Med. 2023 May;80(5):246-253. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2022-108716. Epub 2023 Mar 2.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Aanesen F, Grotle M, Rysstad TL, Tveter AT, Tingulstad A, Lochting I, Smastuen MC, van Tulder MW, Berg R, Foster NE, Wynne-Jones G, Sowden G, Fors E, Bagoien G, Hagen R, Storheim K, Oiestad BE. Effectiveness of adding motivational interviewing or a stratified vocational advice intervention to usual case management on return to work for people with musculoskeletal disorders: the MI-NAV randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med. 2023 Jan;80(1):42-50. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2022-108637. Epub 2022 Nov 25.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Oiestad BE, Aanesen F, Lochting I, Storheim K, Tingulstad A, Rysstad TL, Smastuen MC, Tveter AT, Sowden G, Wynne-Jones G, Fors EA, van Tulder M, Berg RC, Foster NE, Grotle M. Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of adding motivational interviewing or stratified vocational advice intervention to usual case management on return to work for people with musculoskeletal disorders. The MI-NAV study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Jul 28;21(1):496. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03475-z.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Statistical Analysis Plan: Effectiveness of MI and SVAI on sick leave
Document Type: Statistical Analysis Plan: Moderation analysis of MI and SVAI on sick leave
Document Type: Statistical Analysis Plan: Modifiable prognostic factors of high costs
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
The MI-NAV Study
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Effect Study of on Intervention on Pain, Function, Health and Behaviour for Older Adults Living With Chronic Pain
NCT02953470
UNKNOWN
NA
Cognitive Functional Therapy Compared to Cognitive Patient Education and Physiotherapy for Patients With Low Back Pain
NCT03952741
COMPLETED
NA
Use of Wearable Tech to Increase Physical Activity in Inpatient Rehabilitation for Patients With Chronic Pain
NCT04031092
COMPLETED
NA
Norwegian Psychomotor Physiotherapy - The Effect on Quality of Life
NCT02282007
COMPLETED
NA
Nationwide Evaluation of Multimodal Rehabilitation in Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
NCT02248363
UNKNOWN
Musculoskeletal Nociceptive Pain in Participants With Neuromuscular Disorders
NCT04907162
COMPLETED
Implementation of a Behavioural Medicine Approach in Physical Therapy for Treatment of Chronic Pain
NCT03118453
UNKNOWN
NA
What is the Effect of a Course for Treatment Providers on Their Patient Outcome
NCT00902642
COMPLETED
NA
Assessment of Musculoskeletal Pain and Psychosocial Status of Athletes
NCT03729193
COMPLETED
Risk Assessment for Prolonged Sickness Absence Due to Musculoskeletal Conditions
NCT04196634
UNKNOWN
Individually Tailored Web-based Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation in Primary Health Care
NCT01475591
COMPLETED
NA
Pain in Competitive Athletes With Physical Disabilities: Techniques, Support and Perceived Difficulties
NCT05639842
COMPLETED
Pain Neuroscience Education in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
NCT03100721
COMPLETED
NA
Effect of Research Participation Versus Usual Clinical Treatment on Pain in Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders
NCT03785561
COMPLETED
Physical Function, Health and Employment for People With Multiple Sclerosis
NCT06110468
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Cost- Effectiveness of a Face-to-Face Rehabilitation Program vs an Telemedicine Program in Chronic Low Back Pain
NCT04266366
COMPLETED
NA
Pain in Competitive Athletes With Physical Disabilities and Techniques for Its Management
NCT05647031
COMPLETED
Activity and Life-role Targeted Pain Rehabilitation in Primary Health Care
NCT01447953
TERMINATED
NA
Attentional Bias Modification Training for People With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
NCT02232100
UNKNOWN
NA
Individuals With Chronic Work-related Musculoskeletal Disease a Multidisciplinary Care Program
NCT05150730
COMPLETED
NA
Coordinating Teams in Primary Health Care.
NCT02020772
COMPLETED
NA
Assessment of Musculoskeletal Pain and Psychosocial Status of Athletes
NCT03628547
UNKNOWN
Effects of a Mindfulness Programme on Competitive Athletes With Physical Disabilities
NCT06184217
COMPLETED
NA
Effects of Interdisciplinary Treatment on Sickness Absence in Patients With Chronic Pain
NCT04598373
COMPLETED