Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30305099›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Image and perception of physicians as barriers to inter-disciplinary cooperation? - the example of German occupational health physicians in the rehabilitation process: a qualitative study.

Jan M Stratil, Monika A Rieger, Susanne Voelter-Mahlknecht

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Collaboration between occupational health services and other health care: a scoping review.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Addressing future work ability of employees in GP consultations: results of a cross-sectional study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Jan M StratilInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tuebingen, Wilhelmstrasse 27, 72074, Tuebingen, Germany. arbeitsmedizin@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Monika A RiegerInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tuebingen, Wilhelmstrasse 27, 72074, Tuebingen, Germany.
Susanne Voelter-MahlknechtInstitute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tuebingen, Wilhelmstrasse 27, 72074, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the German rehabilitation system, primary care physicians (PCPs), occupational health physicians (OPs), and rehabilitation physicians (RPs) fulfill different distinct functions and roles. While effective cooperation can improve outcomes of rehabilitation, the cooperation between these groups of stakeholders has been criticized as lacking or insufficient. This article proposes an approach to understand the low levels of cooperation by examining the role of group perception and group identity in intra-professional cooperation as a barrier to cooperation between physicians in different roles. Group perception was evaluated in terms of (1) negative views about another group of medical specialists and (2) differences between the perception of members and non-members of a medical specialty group. To examine this issue, we focused on the role of OPs in the German rehabilitation process.

methodsWe implemented a qualitative study design with eight focus group discussions with PCPs, OPs, RPs, and patients (two focus group discussions per stakeholder group; 4-10 participants) and qualitative content analysis. We used the Social Identity Approach by Tajfel and Turner as a theoretical underpinning.

resultsWhile all protagonists reported a positive perception of their own professional group, we found numerous negative perceptions about other groups, especially regarding OPs. Negative perceptions of OPs included 1) apparent conflict of interest between employer and employee, 2) lack of commitment to patient outcomes, 3) lack of useful specialized knowledge which could have a bearing on rehabilitation outcomes, and 4) distrust on the part of their patients. We also found divergent perceptions regarding roles, responsibilities, and capabilities among the specialist groups. Both negative and conflicting perceptions about roles were characterized as barriers to cooperation by study participants.

conclusionThis example of cooperation between RPs, OPs, and PCPs suggests that negative and diverging perceptions about an out-group could create barriers in intra-professional and inter-disciplinary cooperation between physicians. These perspectives might also be useful in explaining problems at intersections between different specialties. We suggest examining the inter-group dimension of perception-based barriers to cooperation in future interventions to overcome problems caused by intra-professional and inter-disciplinary conflicts in addition to other barriers (i.e. organizational hurdles).

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsOccupational Health PhysiciansPhysical and Rehabilitation MedicinePhysicians, Primary CareAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationMaleMiddle AgedOccupational MedicineQualitative ResearchConflictsCooperationGeneral practitionersHealth services researchInter-disciplinaryInterfaceOccupational health physiciansPrimary care physiciansRehabilitationSocial identity approach

Identifiers

PMID30305099
PMCPMC6180505

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.