Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29644920›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of primary health care2018

Sick-listed workers' expectations about and experiences with independent medical evaluation: a qualitative interview study from Norway.

Aase Aamland, Silje Maeland

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2018. 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
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.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  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.

Aase Aamlanda Research Unit for General Practice , Uni Research Health , Bergen , Norway.
Silje Maelandb Uni Research Health , Uni Research , Bergen , Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo reduce the country's sick leave rate, Norwegian politicians have suggested independent medical evaluations (IMEs) for sick-listed workers. IME was tested in a large, randomized controlled trial in one Norwegian county (Evaluation of IME in Norway, or 'the NIME trial'). The current study´s aim was to explore sick-listed workers' expectations about and experiences with participating in an IME. MATERIAL AND

methodsNine individual semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted. Our convenience sample included six women and three men, aged 35-59 years, who had diverse medical reasons for being on sick leave. Systematic text condensation was used for analysis.

resultsThe participants questioned both the IME purpose and timing, but felt a moral obligation to participate. Inadequate information provided by their general practitioner (GP) to the IME doctor was considered burdensome by several participants. However, most participants appreciated the IME as a positive discussion, even if they did not feel it had any impact on their follow-up or return-to-work process.

conclusionsAccording to the sick-listed workers the IMEs were administered too late and disturbed already initiated treatment processes and return to work efforts. Still, the consultation with the IME doctor was rated as a positive encounter, contrary to their expectations. Our results diverge from findings in other countries where experiences with IME consultations have been reported as predominantly negative. These findings, along with additional, upcoming evaluations, will serve as a basis for the Norwegian government's decision about whether to implement IMEs on a regular basis. Key points   Independent medical evaluations for sick-listed workers has been tested out in a large Norwegian RCT and will be evaluated through qualitative interviews with participating stakeholders and by assessing the effects on RTW and costs/benefits. In this study, we explored sick-listed workers' expectations about and experiences with participating in an IME.   • Participants questioned both the IME purpose and timing, but felt a moral obligation to participate.   • Inadequate information provided by their general practitioner (GP) to the IME doctor was considered burdensome by several participants   • Sick-listed workers appreciated the IME as a positive discussion, even if they did not feel it had any impact on their follow-up or return-to-work process.

Indexed as

AttitudeIndependent Medical EvaluationProgram EvaluationReturn to WorkSick LeaveWork Capacity EvaluationAdultCommunicationFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesGeneral practiceindependent medical evaluationqualitative researchsick leaveworkers’ compensation

Identifiers

PMID29644920
PMCPMC6066295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.