ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011
Fit for purpose? Using the fit note with patients with chronic pain: a qualitative study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- What drives the 'sick note culture' in the UK?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Assessing work capacity - reviewing the what and how of physicians' clinical practice.BMC family practice · 2020Review
- Work Experiences During and After Treatment Among Self-Employed People with Cancer.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2020Article
- The work of return to work. Challenges of returning to work when you have chronic pain: a meta-ethnography.BMJ open · 2019Review
- Application of the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behaviour Change Wheel to Understand Physicians' Behaviors and Behavior Change in Using Temporary Work Modifications for Return to Work: A Qualitative Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2018Article
- Occupational Physicians' Reasoning about Recommending Early Return to Work with Work Modifications.PloS one · 2016Article
- Recommendations to facilitate the ideal fit note: are they achievable in practice?BMC family practice · 2015Article
- General practitioners and sickness certification for injury in Australia.BMC family practice · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStaying in work may benefit patients with chronic pain, but can be difficult for GPs to negotiate with patients and their employers. The new fit note is designed to help this process, but little is known of how it is operating.
aimTo explore GPs' views on the fit note, with particular reference to sickness certification for patients with chronic pain. DESIGN AND
settingQualitative study using semi-structured interviews in eight primary care trusts in south-west England.
methodIn-depth interviews with 13 GPs.
resultsGPs reported that the rationale behind the fit note is sound and that it may help patients with chronic pain to return to work earlier. However, GPs also reported barriers to successful fit note use, including the need to preserve doctor-patient relationships, inconsistent engagement from employers, GPs' lack of specialist occupational health knowledge, issues with fit note training, and whether a new form can achieve cultural shift.
conclusionWhile doctors agree that good work improves health outcomes, they do not think that fit notes will greatly alter sickness-certification rates without more concerted initiatives to manage the tripartite negotiation between doctor, patient, and employer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.