In many countries, a high or increasing rate of sickness absence is challenging the sustainability of present sickness absence benefit schemes. Most sickness absence is certified on the grounds of common mental disorders or musculoskeletal disorders, and substantial effort has been invested in developing interventions promoting return to work for these patients. In Norway, the Health in Work ((HelseIArbeid), HIA) clinics were established as outpatients’ services within the specialised healthcare system, with the aim of improving health and supporting return to work. The HIA service admits patients with low-to-moderate anxiety/depression and/or musculoskeletal disorders. In this protocol, we describe the naturalistic multicentre randomised controlled trial Norwegian Sickness Absence Clinic Efficacy study, which aims to determine the effect of HIA on work participation and health.

The HIA outpatient service is staffed by clinical psychologists, physiotherapists, medical specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation and employment support supervisors from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. Patients admitted to HIA have access to multidisciplinary assessment and treatment. The trial recruits’ patients from five HIA outpatient clinics in Northern Norway. Patients are randomised in equal proportions to either (1) rapid HIA (assessment within 4 weeks), (2) delayed HIA (assessment within 10–14 weeks) or (3) active control, which consists of a monodisciplinary examination at HIA close to diagnosis-specific deadline for examination as suggested by guidelines (8–26 weeks). The trial commenced recruitment on 16 January 2023 and will recruit 2500 patients. The aim is to assess the effect of the HIA service, with the hypothesis that the HIA concept is superior to what resembles treatment as usual, in improving employment and preventing long-term welfare dependency. Secondary outcomes include self-reported symptoms of health problems. We also examine the effect the service has on other healthcare utilisation. To date, no research has been conducted to assess the efficacy of the HIA service. If proven efficacious, and if there is an economic case for this investment in tailored healthcare delivery, the policy implication may be implementation of the service at scale. If not, adaptations or investments into other viable paths of treatment may be considered.

The study is approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics (REC North, #122770). Results from the study will be disseminated at national and international scientific conferences, to funders and participating outpatient clinics in seminars and in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

NCT05310695.

Individuals experiencing moderate to severe mental illness have low rates of workforce inclusion, with a consequence of high welfare dependency, affecting both societal costs and health. Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an approach to supported employment where the goal is to help people obtain jobs on the open rather than sheltered labour markets. Despite multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicating that the IPS model enables employment better than treatment as usual, with widespread adoption in some jurisdictions, the broader impacts of this large-scale implementation on mental health, quality of life and social functioning remain unknown.

Between 2012 and 2019, Norway introduced IPS through both local and national government projects. This study assesses the social and economic benefits of the implementation of IPS using Norwegian registry data, focusing on 18–45-year-old people receiving specialist mental healthcare, and who did not have steady employment at treatment start. Instead of assessing IPS efficacy in an RCT design, we use a naturalistic study design, evaluating IPS effectiveness by comparing aggregate population-level outcomes over time between areas where IPS was not available.

In work package (WP) 1, we mapped the availability and implementation of IPS across Norway. This involved analysing information on funding, resource and capacity levels to understand how IPS had been rolled out across the country. While completed, we include a description of WP1 here, as it informs WP2 and WP3. WP2 is an effectiveness evaluation investigating the population-level outcomes of implementing IPS, focusing on health, mortality, quality of life and social functioning. Finally, in WP3, we assess the financial implications of implementing IPS from a public purse perspective, synthesising data on resource use and costs of implementation with data from WP2.

Overall, we will examine the societal effects of IPS implementation on employment, welfare dependency, mental healthcare use, emergency care visits, self-harm and suicide, general mortality, crime and victimisation. Emphasis will be on long-term outcomes, and we will model the economic consequences of IPS. This study aims to inform policy making and strategies for implementing IPS at scale.

This is an effectiveness study using registry data. The Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics Northern Norway, REK North has approved the use of registry data without informed consent for this project (approval number 134553).

The findings will be disseminated both in academic peer-reviewed journals, directly to informants in WP1, to the public through media and the project website, and at relevant conferences and seminars for specific relevant target groups.

Not applicable