Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29411307›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2018

Interprofessional Communication Concerning Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Qualitative Study.

Séverine Beyer, Thomas Gouyet, Véronique Daubas Letourneux, Eric Mener, Sandrine Huge, Audrey Petit, Cyril Begue

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Collaboration between occupational health services and other health care: a scoping review.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Séverine BeyerDepartment of Occupational Health, Faculty of médecine, University of Rennes 1, 2, Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard, 35000, Rennes, France.
Thomas GouyetDepartment of Occupational Health, Faculty of médecine, University of Rennes 1, 2, Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard, 35000, Rennes, France.
Véronique Daubas LetourneuxEHESP, Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard CS 74312, 35043, Rennes Cedex, France.
Eric MenerDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of médecine, University of Rennes 1, 2, Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard, 35000, Rennes, France.
Sandrine HugeDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of médecine, University of Rennes 1, 2, Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard, 35000, Rennes, France.
Audrey PetitEpidemiology in Occupational Health and Ergonomics (ESTER), University of Angers, 28 rue Roger Amsler Cedex 74521, 49045, Angers Cedex 01, France.
Cyril BegueEpidemiology in Occupational Health and Ergonomics (ESTER), University of Angers, 28 rue Roger Amsler Cedex 74521, 49045, Angers Cedex 01, France. cyril.begue@univ-angers.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Understanding and treating musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) requires coordination between the numerous healthcare professionals involved, including occupational physicians (OPs), general practitioners (GPs) and social insurance physicians (SIPs). The main objective of this study was to assess communication between OPs, GPs and SIPs in the management of MSDs. Methods This is a qualitative study in the form of semi-structured interviews with OPs in the French region of Brittany. The interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. The interviews were fully coded and analysed thematically using NVivo® software. Results The interviews were carried out among 17 OPs from companies and external occupational healthcare services who treated employees from various activity sectors. Different communication channels were used depending on the interlocutor, though they were mainly contacted by mail or phone. Most of the communication passed through the patient, either verbally or in writing. No major failure was detected in communication between the various types of practitioners, but instances of communication were influenced by various factors such as differences in perception, representation and objectives, as well as by how well the physicians knew each other. A number of instances of non-communication were found. Conclusion This study showed that patients play a key role in the interactions between different practitioners. It also revealed that different types of professional relationships depend on the objectives of the various interlocutors, which in turn vary according to their roles and competences.

Indexed as

General PracticeInterdisciplinary CommunicationInterprofessional RelationsOccupational MedicineSocial SecurityAdultAgedFemaleFranceHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchCommunicationGeneral practitionersMusculoskeletal disordersOccupational physiciansSocial insurance physicians

Identifiers

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.