Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28427338›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

'Working is out of the question': a qualitative text analysis of medical certificates of disability.

Guri Aarseth, Bård Natvig, Eivind Engebretsen, Anne Kveim Lie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guri AarsethDepartment of General Practice, University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, Postboks 1130, Blindern, 0318, OSLO, Norway. guri.aarseth@medisin.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3159-4636
Bård NatvigDepartment of General Practice, University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, Postboks 1130, Blindern, 0318, OSLO, Norway.
Eivind EngebretsenDepartment of Health Science, University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, Postboks 1089, Blindern, 0318, OSLO, Norway.
Anne Kveim LieDepartement of Community Medicine and Global Health, University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine; Institute of Health and Society, Postboks 1130, Blindern, 0318, OSLO, Norway.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical certificates influence the distribution of economic benefits in welfare states; however, the qualitative aspects of these texts remain largely unexplored. The present study is the first systematic investigation done of these texts. Our aim was to investigate how GPs select and mediate information about their patients' health and how they support their conclusions about illness, functioning and fitness for work in medical certificates.

methodsWe performed a textual analysis of thirty-three medical certificates produced by general practitioners (GP) in Norway at the request of the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV).The certificates were subjected to critical reading using the combined analytic methods of narratology and linguistics.

resultsSome of the medical information was unclear, ambiguous, and possibly misleading. Evaluations of functioning related to illness were scarce or absent, regardless of diagnosis, and, hence, the basis of working incapacity was unclear. Voices in the text frequently conflated, obscuring the source of speaker. In some documents, the expert's subtle use of language implied doubts about the claimant's credibility, but explicit advocacy also occurred. GPs show little insight into their patients' working lives, but rather than express uncertainty and incompetence, they may resort to making too absolute and too general statements about patients' working capacity, and fail to report thorough assessments.

conclusionsA number of the texts in our material may not function as sufficient or reliable sources for making decisions regarding social benefits. Certificates as these may be deficient for several reasons, and textual incompetence may be one of them. Physicians in Norway receive no systematic training in professional writing. High-quality medical certificates, we believe, might be economical in the long term: it might increase the efficiency with which NAV processes cases and save costs by eliminating the need for unnecessary and expensive specialist reports. Moreover, correct and coherent medical certificates can strengthen legal protection for claimants. Eventually, reducing advocacy in these documents may contribute to a fairer evaluation of whether claimants are eligible for disability benefits or not. Therefore, we believe that professional writing skills should be validated as an important part of medical practice and should be integrated in medical schools and in further education as a discipline in its own right, preferably involving humanities professors.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationWork Capacity EvaluationAdultDatabases, FactualDecision MakingFamily PracticeFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInsurance, DisabilityMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPersons with DisabilitiesQuality ControlRetrospective StudiesDocument analysisGPMedical certificates of incapacity for workNorway

Identifiers

PMID28427338
PMCPMC5399412
OpenAlexW2605522747

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.