Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26264627›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Problems with sickness certification tasks: experiences from physicians in different clinical settings. A cross-sectional nationwide study in Sweden.

Therese Ljungquist, Elin Hinas, Gunnar H Nilsson, Catharina Gustavsson, Britt Arrelöv, Kristina Alexanderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. No longer alone.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025
    Article
  7. Clinical Work-Integrating Care in Current Practice: A Scoping Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Therese LjungquistDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. therese.ljungquist@ki.se.
Elin HinasDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. elin.hinas@ki.se.
Gunnar H NilssonDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Centre for Family Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. gunnar.nilsson@sll.se.
Catharina GustavssonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. catharina.gustavsson@ki.se.
Britt ArrelövStockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden. britt.arrelov@sll.se.
Kristina AlexandersonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. kristina.alexanderson@ki.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany physicians find sickness certification of patients problematic. The aims were to explore problems that physicians in different clinical settings experience with sickness certification tasks in general and with assessment of function, work capacity, and need for sick leave, as well as handling of sick-leave spells of different durations.

methodsData from a questionnaire sent to 33,144 physicians aged <68 years, living and working in Sweden in 2012 were analysed. The response rate was 57.6%. The study group comprised the 12,933 responders who had sickness certification tasks. Frequencies and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for questions concerning how problematic the physicians experienced different assessments related to patients' function, work capacity, and need for sick leave, as well as handling sick-leave spells of different durations.

resultsThere were large differences between clinical settings regarding how often and to what extent sickness certification consultations were perceived as problematic. Physicians working in primary health care (PHC) had the highest proportions experiencing sickness certification consultations as problematic at least once a week (49.5%) and as very or fairly problematic (56.6%), followed by physicians working in psychiatry, pain management, or orthopaedics. More than half of the responders found it very or fairly problematic to assess patients' work capacity (57.8%), to make a long-term prognosis about patients' future work capacity (55.7%), and to handle long-term or very long-term sickness certifications (51.9% and 51.8%). The proportions were highest among physicians working in PHC, rheumatology, neurology, or psychiatry.

conclusionsThe rates of physicians finding sickness certification task problematic varied much with clinical setting, and were highest among physicians in PHC. More knowledge is needed about the work conditions and prerequisites for optimal handling of sickness certification in different clinical settings.

Indexed as

Sick LeaveWork Capacity EvaluationAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioOrthopedicsPhysiciansPrimary Health CarePsychiatryReferral and ConsultationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26264627
PMCPMC4533961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.