ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2012
Optimal communication from occupational physicians to GPs: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A case management occupational health model to facilitate earlier return to work of NHS staff with common mental health disorders: a feasibility study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Trial
- Collaboration between occupational health services and other health care: a scoping review.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Cooperation between Public Primary Health Care and Occupational Health Care Professionals in Work Ability-Related Health Issues.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Interprofessional Communication Concerning Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Qualitative Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCorrespondence from occupational physicians to GPs is infrequent, despite evidence that good communication leads to earlier return to work of sick-listed patients and is cost effective.
aimTo explore the circumstances, content, and preferred method of communication GPs would value from an occupational physician, following an occupational health consultation with one of their patients. DESIGN AND
settingA cross-sectional survey in the UK.
methodA questionnaire was developed de novo, piloted, and sent to 600 GPs of consecutive employees undergoing occupational physician assessments. Descriptive data were generated using Excel.
resultsThe response rate was 374/600 (62%). Demographic features of GP responders reflected national figures. A total of 372 (99.5%) GPs wanted information from occupational physicians. Most wanted information on diagnosis (303, 81%), clinical assessment (275, 74%), functional assessment (295, 79%), or advice on the timing (308, 82%) and adjustments 290 (78%) of any return-to-work plan. Over 80% wanted information following every occupational physician consultation, and over 90% wanted information on the timing of a return to work, adjustments suggested, or if different medical diagnosis or management was suggested. The preferred method of communication was letter by post 341/374 (92%). Brief, relevant information was valued and considered useful for completing 'fit notes'.
conclusionOccupational physicians should send formal letters, by post, to the patient's GP following occupational health assessments. This would assist the GP in completing the patient's 'fit note' and ultimately increase the chances of their patient being rehabilitated back to work.
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.