Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background With nearly 30 % of the general population experiencing one mental disorder in 12 months, common mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent in Germany and mainly affect the workforce. Therefore, the processes of successfully returning to work (RTW) and achieving a sustainable RTW (SRTW) are important not only for recovery but the prevention of negative consequences like job loss or disability retirement. While factors influencing and predicting the time until RTW are well-investigated in other countries, research on determinants of RTW and SRTW has received little attention in Germany. Consequently, this study aims to investigate the RTW and SRTW processes due to CMDs from the employees´ perspective in Germany. Methods This prospective cohort study uses a convergent parallel mixed methods design with a quantitative sample and qualitative sub-sample. Two hundred eighty-six participants of the quantitative study and a sub-sample of 32 participants of the qualitative study were included. The primary outcome of the quantitative study is the time until RTW and full RTW. The secondary outcome is the sustainability of RTW. The following measures will be used to cover work-, RTW- and health-related factors: working time, duration of sickness absences, functional ability, work ability, RTW self-efficacy, social support, work-privacy conflict, job satisfaction, job crafting and depressive symptoms. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated at the end. Discussion The paper provides an overview on study design, recruitment, sample characteristics and baseline findings of an 18 months mixed methods follow-up study in Germany. This study will provide evidence of (S)RTW processes and its influencing factors due to CMDs in Germany and therefore contribute to further improvement of its (S)RTW practices. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00010903 , July 28, 2017, retrospectively registered).

Background The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool is widely used for investigating the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). Originally, AMSTAR was developed for SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Its applicability to SRs of other study designs remains unclear. Our objectives were to: 1) analyze how AMSTAR is applied by authors and (2) analyze whether the authors pay attention to the original purpose of AMSTAR and for what it has been validated. Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from inception through October 2016 to identify studies that applied AMSTAR. Full-text studies were sought for all retrieved hits and screened by one reviewer. A second reviewer verified the excluded studies (liberal acceleration). Data were extracted into structured tables by one reviewer and were checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies at any stage were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third person. We analyzed the data descriptively as frequencies or medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Associations were quantified using the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals. Results We identified 247 studies. They included a median of 17 reviews (interquartile range (IQR): 8 to 47) per study. AMSTAR was modified in 23% (57/247) of studies. In most studies, an AMSTAR score was calculated (200/247; 81%). Methods for calculating an AMSTAR score varied, with summing up all yes answers (yes = 1) being the most frequent option (102/200; 51%). More than one third of the authors failed to report how the AMSTAR score was obtained (71/200; 36%). In a subgroup analysis, we compared overviews of reviews ( n  = 154) with the methodological publications ( n  = 93). The overviews of reviews were much less likely to mention both limitations with respect to study designs (if other studies other than RCTs were included in the reviews) (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) and overall score (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). Conclusions Authors, peer reviewers, and editors should pay more attention to the correct use and reporting of assessment tools in evidence synthesis. Authors of overviews of reviews should ensure to have a methodological expert in their review team.

Purpose In Germany, return to work (RTW) after inpatient treatment for common mental disorders (CMDs) is a complex process at the intersection of the mental healthcare system and the workplace. This study examined (1) the time to first and full RTW and (2) associated factors among employees receiving inpatient treatment for CMDs. Methods In this prospective cohort study, employees receiving inpatient psychiatric or medical rehabilitation treatment for CMDs were interviewed by phone during their last week before discharge. Follow-up interviews were conducted after 6, 12, and 18 months. Health-, personal, and work-related factors were used from baseline measurement. Parametric survival analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with time to first and full RTW. Results A total of N = 269 participants who stayed at a psychiatric clinic or a medical rehabilitation facility were included. Almost all participants (n = 252, 94%) from both treatment settings reported a first RTW and a full RTW. The time to first and full RTW was shortest among participants from medical rehabilitation (both median 6 days) and longer among participants from psychiatric treatment (median 17 days to first RTW and 73 days to full RTW). While only health-related and personal factors were associated with time to first RTW, leadership quality and needed individual RTW support were associated with time to full RTW. Conclusions More attention to work accommodation needs for RTW in clinical practice and coordinated actions towards RTW in collaboration with key RTW stakeholders in the workplace may support a timely RTW.Clinical Registration Number DRKS00010903, retrospectively registered.

There is a movement from generic quality checklists toward a more domain-based approach in critical appraisal tools. This study aimed to report on a first experience with the newly developed risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool and compare it with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), that is, the most common used tool to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews while assessing validity, reliability, and applicability. Validation study with four reviewers based on 16 systematic reviews in the field of occupational health. Interrater reliability (IRR) of all four raters was highest for domain 2 (Fleiss' kappa κ = 0.56) and lowest for domain 4 (κ = 0.04). For ROBIS, median IRR was κ = 0.52 (range 0.13–0.88) for the experienced pair of raters compared to κ = 0.32 (range 0.12–0.76) for the less experienced pair of raters. The percentage of “yes” scores of each review of ROBIS ratings was strongly correlated with the AMSTAR ratings (rs = 0.76; P = 0.01). ROBIS has fair reliability and good construct validity to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews. More validation studies are needed to investigate reliability and applicability, in particular.

Background ‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’ (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective. Discussion A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2–16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2–16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Summary Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins. Trial registration Not applicable.

Background Evidence 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. Discussion One 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. Summary Potential 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.

Background Psychotherapeutic consultation at work (PT-A) aims to reach employees at risk of or suffering from common mental disorders early by offering low-threshold consultation that combines person-related and work-related modules. In addition to this individual-level approach, it is suggested that the psychosocial safety climate (PSC) in an organization precedes psychosocial working conditions and impacts employees' psychological health. The PSC reflects employees' perceptions regarding the extent to which psychological health and safety are prioritized by the management. However, little is known about the role of PSC on the intervention effect in participants receiving PT-A. Therefore, this study aims to investigate whether PSC moderates the effect of PT-A on self-reported depressive symptoms, anxiety, and general health status. Methods As a secondary analysis, this study analyzed data on participants ( n  = 549) from a multicenter randomized controlled trial in Germany evaluating the effectiveness of PT-A. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire (T0) and follow-up questionnaires nine months (T1) and 15 months later (T2). They provided information on general health status (one item of the 12-items Veterans RAND health survey), depressive symptoms (Patient-Health-Questionnaire-9), anxiety symptoms (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-2) and the four-item PSC questionnaire. To investigate the role of PSC for the intervention effect, an interaction term (PSC*treatment group) was included in multiple linear regression analyses estimating (mental) health indicators at either T1 ( n  = 411) or T2 ( n  = 362). Analyses were adjusted for sex, age and occupational level. Results Participants in the intervention group reported a significant symptom reduction nine and 15 months after PT-A. In terms of direct effects, PSC was negatively associated with anxiety symptoms at T1 (B = 0.16, p  = .04). PSC did not moderate the intervention effect on depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms or general health status. Conclusions Findings indicated a significant symptom reduction after PT-A, and showed that PSC does not play a role in the extent of symptom reduction among employees in Germany. However, PSC may need to be improved in German workplaces and its effect on individual-level symptoms regarding common mental disorders (CMD) should be further investigated. Trial registration The RCT was registered at the German Clinical Trial Register on 01.03.2021 (DRKS00023049) https//drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00023049.

Background Inter-rater reliability (IRR) is mainly assessed based on only two reviewers of unknown expertise. The aim of this paper is to examine differences in the IRR of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and R(evised)-AMSTAR depending on the pair of reviewers. Methods Five reviewers independently applied AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR to 16 systematic reviews (eight Cochrane reviews and eight non-Cochrane reviews) from the field of occupational health. Responses were dichotomized and reliability measures were calculated by applying Holsti’s method (r) and Cohen’s kappa (κ) to all potential pairs of reviewers. Given that five reviewers participated in the study, there were ten possible pairs of reviewers. Results Inter-rater reliability varied for AMSTAR between r  = 0.82 and r  = 0.98 (median r  = 0.88) using Holsti’s method and κ = 0.41 and κ = 0.69 (median κ = 0.52) using Cohen’s kappa and for R-AMSTAR between r  = 0.77 and r  = 0.89 (median r  = 0.82) and κ = 0.32 and κ = 0.67 (median κ = 0.45) depending on the pair of reviewers. The same pair of reviewers yielded the highest IRR for both instruments. Pairwise Cohen’s kappa reliability measures showed a moderate correlation between AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR (Spearman’s ρ =0.50). The mean inter-rater reliability for AMSTAR was highest for item 1 (κ = 1.00) and item 5 (κ = 0.78), while lowest values were found for items 3, 8, 9 and 11, which showed only fair agreement. Conclusions Inter-rater reliability varies widely depending on the pair of reviewers. There may be some shortcomings associated with conducting reliability studies with only two reviewers. Further studies should include additional reviewers and should probably also take account of their level of expertise.

Background Systematic Reviews (SRs) can build the groundwork for evidence-based health care decision-making. A sound methodological quality of SRs is crucial. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) is a widely used tool developed to assess the methodological quality of SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Research shows that AMSTAR seems to be valid and reliable in terms of interrater reliability (IRR), but the test retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR has never been investigated. In our study we investigated the TRR of AMSTAR to evaluate the importance of its measurement and contribute to the discussion of the measurement properties of AMSTAR and other quality assessment tools. Methods Seven raters at three institutions independently assessed the methodological quality of SRs in the field of occupational health with AMSTAR. Between the first and second ratings was a timespan of approximately two years. Answers were dichotomized, and we calculated the TRR of all raters and AMSTAR items using Gwet’s AC1 coefficient. To investigate the impact of variation in the ratings over time, we obtained summary scores for each review. Results AMSTAR item 4 (Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?) provided the lowest median TRR of 0.53 (moderate agreement). Perfect agreement of all reviewers was detected for AMSTAR-item 1 with a Gwet’s AC1 of 1, which represented perfect agreement. The median TRR of the single raters varied between 0.69 (substantial agreement) and 0.89 (almost perfect agreement). Variation of two or more points in yes-scored AMSTAR items was observed in 65% (73/112) of all assessments. Conclusions The high variation between the first and second AMSTAR ratings suggests that consideration of the TRR is important when evaluating the psychometric properties of AMSTAR.. However, more evidence is needed to investigate this neglected issue of measurement properties. Our results may initiate discussion of the importance of considering the TRR of assessment tools. A further examination of the TRR of AMSTAR, as well as other recently established rating tools such as AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), would be useful.

Background Common mental disorders are one of the leading causes for sickness absence and early retirement due to reduced health. Furthermore, a treatment gap for common mental disorders has been described worldwide. Within this study, psychotherapeutic consultation at work defined as a tailored, module-based and work-related psychotherapeutic intervention will be applied to improve mental health care. Methods This study comprises a randomised controlled multicentre trial with 1:1 allocation to an intervention and control group. In total, 520 employees with common mental disorders shall be recruited from companies being located around five study centres in Germany. Besides care as usual, the intervention group will receive up to 17 sessions of psychotherapy. The first session will include basics diagnostics and medical indication of treatment and the second session will include work-related diagnostics. Then, participants of the intervention group may receive work-related psychotherapeutic consultation for up to ten sessions. Further psychotherapeutic consultation during return to work for up to five sessions will be offered where appropriate. The control group will receive care as usual and the first intervention session of basic diagnostics and medical indication of treatment. After enrolment to the study, participants will be followed up after nine (first follow-up) and fifteen (second follow-up) months. Self-reported days of sickness absence within the last 6 months at the second follow-up will be used as the primary outcome and self-efficacy at the second follow-up as the secondary outcome. Furthermore, a cost-benefit assessment related to costs of common mental disorders for social insurances and companies will be performed. Discussion Psychotherapeutic consultation at work represents a low threshold care model aiming to overcome treatment gaps for employees with common mental disorders. If successfully implemented and evaluated, it might serve as a role model to the care of employees with common mental disorders and might be adopted in standard care in cooperation with sickness and pension insurances in Germany. Trial registration The friaa project was registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS) at 01.03.2021 (DRKS00023049): https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023049 .