Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30689481›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2019

Unsanctioned techniques for having sickness certificates accepted: a qualitative exploration and description of the strategies used by Swedish general practitioners.

Mani Shutzberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. To Our Nurse Friends: An Ode to Resistance.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Validity must be discussed.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mani Shutzberga Centre for Studies in Practical Knowledge , Södertörn University , Stockholm , Sweden.
Södertörn University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore informal and unsanctioned techniques general practitioners (GPs) employ as a means to increase the likelihood of sickness certificate approval, following the Swedish Social Insurance Agency's (SSIA's) consolidation of the gatekeeping role in sickness benefit evaluation.

designQualitative semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs working in Swedish primary care. A thematic analysis of the transcribed material was carried out to map different techniques employed by the practitioners.

resultsEight techniques were identified, particularly with respect to the way in which the sickness certificate is written to ensure approval by the SSIA. The identified techniques were most commonly adopted when the patient's case was perceived to be at high risk for rejection by the SSIA (such as psychiatric illnesses, chronic pain etc.).

conclusionsThe findings imply that the informal and unsanctioned techniques are complex and ambiguous. They are used intentionally and covertly. The study also suggests that, while the consolidation of SSIA's gatekeeping role may have resolved some sickness absence issues, a consequence may be that GPs develop unsanctioned techniques to ensure compliance.

Indexed as

GatekeepingGeneral PractitionersMedical RecordsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Sick LeaveWork Capacity EvaluationWritingAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSwedenFamily practicenon-compliancepraxisqualitative researchsickness certificationSweden

Identifiers

PMID30689481
PMCPMC6454410
OpenAlexW2912356760

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.