Trial reportScandinavian journal of primary health care2018
Sick-listed workers' expectations about and experiences with independent medical evaluation: a qualitative interview study from Norway.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Independent medical evaluation for sick-listed patients: a focus group study of GPs´ expectations and experiences.BMC health services research · 2018Trial
- Relationship between workers' return to work, job retention and income in industrial accidents in Korea: a longitudinal study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Patients' ideas, concerns, expectations and satisfaction in primary health care - a questionnaire study of patients and health care professionals' perspectives.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019Article
- Work incentives, chronic illnesses and how sickness certificates are written affect sickness absence.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.