Observational studyScandinavian journal of primary health care2014
GP and patient predictions of sick-listing duration: how well do they correspond? A prospective observational study.
Observational study in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Predicting the duration of sickness absence due to knee osteoarthritis: a prognostic model developed in a population-based cohort in Sweden.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- The experiences of care managers and rehabilitation coordinators of a primary care intervention to promote return to work for patients with common mental disorders: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Influence of antidepressant therapy on sick leave in primary care: ADAS, a comparative observational study.Heliyon · 2019Article
- Sick-listing adherence: a register study of 1.4 million episodes of sickness benefit 2010-2013 in Sweden.BMC public health · 2015Article
- Factors Influencing Physician Prognosis: A Scoping Review.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore how well physicians and patients predict sick-listing duration and the correspondence between their respective predictions. To study possible gender differences concerning prediction accuracy.
designProspective observational study.
settingTwo medium-sized primary care centres (PCC) in western Sweden. SUBJECTS: GPs at the PCCs and attending patients sick-listed for > 14 days.
main outcome measuresSick-listing duration; patients' and GPs' predictions of the total duration of the individual patient's sick-listing.
resultsA total of 127 patients (93 women, 34 men, mean age 45 years) and 10 GPs participated in the study. Neither the GPs nor the patients were able to predict the interval until return to work with high accuracy. The GPs' and the patients' perceptions concurred in only 26% of cases. There was a significant difference in the correspondence between the GPs' and patients' respective predictions of sick-listing duration compared with the actual duration. GPs' predictions were more accurate for medium-length duration (1.5-6 months), while patients' predictions were more accurate for long-duration (> 6 months) sick-listing. Patients with less education predicted long duration of sick-listing more accurately than those with more education. There was no significant difference between male and female patients' accuracy of prediction, or between GPs' accuracy of prediction of male vs. female patients' sick-listing duration.
conclusionsPrediction of total sick-listing duration was hard for both GP and patient; their respective predictions corresponded in only one-quarter of the cases. No gender differences were observed in the accuracy of prediction.
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.