Purpose To present an overview of the evidence of the effect of job loss prevention interventions, aiming to improve work ability and decrease absenteeism and/or job loss in persons with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Method A systematic literature search in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library was conducted. A search strategy used in a review from 2014 was copied and additional keywords were added with no time restriction. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 1) was used for quality assessment and the overall quality of each study was determined using predetermined cut-off criteria, categorising studies to be of good-, acceptable- or low quality. Results were summarised narratively. Results Six randomised controlled trials (published in seven articles) were included, one of good quality and five of acceptable quality. One study identified significant improvements in work ability, while three found no significant difference between groups. One study identified significant difference in absenteeism, while two studies identified no difference between the intervention and control groups. Two studies identified significant reduction in job loss, while two studies identified no group difference. The inconsistent results may be due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcome measures used, and the results should therefore be interpreted with caution. Conclusion The results indicate that job loss prevention interventions may have an effect on work ability, absenteeism and in particular job loss among persons with IA. Further good-quality studies regarding job loss prevention interventions for people with IA are still recommended.

目的概述失业预防干预措施的效果证据，旨在提高炎症性关节炎 (IA) 患者的工作能力并减少旷工和/或失业。方法在 PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO 和 Cochrane 图书馆中进行了系统的文献检索。复制了 2014 年评论中使用的搜索策略，并添加了没有时间限制的其他关键字。Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 (RoB 1) 用于质量评估，每项研究的整体质量使用预先确定的截止标准确定，将研究分类为良好、可接受或低质量。结果以叙述方式总结。结果包括六项随机对照试验（发表在七篇文章中），一项质量良好，五项质量可接受。一项研究发现工作能力有显着提高，而三项研究发现两组之间没有显着差异。一项研究发现缺勤率存在显着差异，而两项研究发现干预组和对照组之间没有差异。两项研究发现失业显着减少，而两项研究发现没有组差异。不一致的结果可能是由于所使用的干预措施和结果测量的异质性，因此应谨慎解释结果。结论结果表明，失业预防干预措施可能对 IA 患者的工作能力、缺勤率，尤其是失业有影响。仍建议对 IA 患者进行关于失业预防干预措施的进一步优质研究。