A recent study of workers with a previous sickness absence due to mental health conditions in the Netherlands identified that workers who had conflicts with their supervisor were more likely have a recurrent absence [ 89].
These same researchers have also demonstrated that a problem solving intervention, focused on processes to identify and address challenges in staying at work (including consultations between the work and the supervisor) was effective in reducing the likelihood of recurrent sickness absences compared to care as usual [ 90].
Personalized risk profiles were obtained for five outcomes: employment, unemployment, recurrent sickness absence, continuous long-term sickness absence, and early retirement from the labour market.
This variable can take one of six different values: work (W), unemployment (U), recurrent sickness absence (SA), continuous long-term sickness absence (LTS), disability pension (D), and "temporary out" (TO).
Recurrences of work absence due to LBP are quite common, with about one third of people reporting recurrent work absence within 12 months of LBP onset [ 6].
This dimension concerned previously identified medical risk factors such as pain intensity or presence of sciatica at the onset of the current episode of LBP, initial limitation of ADL, history of recurrent LBP, absence from work due to LBP before the current episode and history of lumbar spine surgery.
Few burden of illness studies for mental disorders have included the costs of recurrent sickness absence in their estimates.
For predicting work, unemployment and recurrent sickness absence both models have better prediction accuracy than the null model.
The predictions of the work status and recurrent sickness absence status are better in the economic growth period than the recession period.
However, recurrent sickness absence episodes seem to be a cost that warrants consideration for inclusion in cost estimates as well as for intervention outcomes.
