Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30394151›Full record

Trial reportThe European journal of general practice2018

Training GPs to improve their management of work-related problems: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Cornelis A de Kock, Peter L B J Lucassen, Hans Bor, J André Knottnerus, Peter C Buijs, Romy Steenbeek, Antoine L M Lagro-Janssen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European journal of general practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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
  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

7 authors.

Cornelis A de Kocka Department of Primary and Community Care, Gender & Women's Health, Radboud University Medical Center , Radboud Institute for Health Sciences , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
Peter L B J Lucassenb Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center , Radboud Institute for Health Sciences , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
Hans Borb Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center , Radboud Institute for Health Sciences , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
J André Knottnerusc Department of General Practice , Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands.
Peter C Buijsd Health and Care , TNO Work , Leiden , The Netherlands.
Romy Steenbeeke Health, Technology , TNO Work , Leiden , The Netherlands.
Antoine L M Lagro-Janssena Department of Primary and Community Care, Gender & Women's Health, Radboud University Medical Center , Radboud Institute for Health Sciences , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPaying attention to their patients' work and recognizing work-related problems is challenging for many general practitioners (GPs).

objectivesTo assess the effect of training designed to improve the care for patients with work-related problems in general practice.

methodsA cluster randomized controlled trial among 32 Dutch GPs. GPs in the intervention group received five-hour training. GPs in the control group were not trained. Included patients (age 18-63, working ≥12 h per week) completed baseline questionnaires and follow-up questionnaires planned after one year. Primary outcome at patient level was patients' expectations about their ability to work, measured using the return-to-work self-efficacy scale (RTW-SE). Primary outcomes on GP level were their use of ICPC-code Z05 ('work-related problem') per 1000 working-age patients and percentage of the electronic medical files of working-age patients in which information about occupation had been recorded.

resultsA total of 640 patients completed the baseline questionnaire and 281 the follow-up questionnaire. We found no statistically significant differences in patients' RTW-SE scores: intervention 4.6 (95%CI: 4.2-5.0); control 4.5 (95%CI: 4.1-4.9). Twenty-nine GPs provided data about the GP-level outcomes, which showed no statistically significant differences: use of ICPC code Z05 11.6 (95%CI: 4.7-18.6) versus 6.0 (95%CI: -1.2 to 13.2) per 1000 working-age patients; recording of occupation 28.8% (95%CI: 25.8-31.7) versus 28.6% (95%CI: 25.6-31.6).

conclusionTraining GPs did not improve patients' work-related self-efficacy or GPs' registration of work-related problems and occupation.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCluster AnalysisEmploymentFemaleGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOccupationsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Quality of Health CareReturn to WorkSelf Efficacyeducational traininggeneral practitionersrandomized controlled trialreturn-to-work self-efficacyWork-related problems

Identifiers

PMID30394151
PMCPMC6225437

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.