Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23211264›Full record

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.

Anna F Stern, Ira Madan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 75% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Collaboration between occupational health services and other health care: a scoping review.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna F SternNexus Healthcare Limited, London. anna.stern@nexushealthcare.co.uk
Ira Madan
Nexen (Canada) · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CommunicationInterprofessional RelationsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational HealthPersonal SatisfactionUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID23211264
PMCPMC3505417
OpenAlexW2152199812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.