Observational studyBMC health services research2019
Workload in Norwegian general practice 2018 - an observational study.
Observational study in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interprofessional follow-up for people at risk of type 2 diabetes in primary healthcare - a randomized controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Trial
- Trends in acute specialist contacts following a primary care contact 2012-21-a registry-based study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Implementation of remote units in two large out-of-hours emergency primary care districts in Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Observational
- General practitioners' attitudes and motivation to supervise medical students in clinical placements: a questionnaire study from Norway.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- «Doctors must live»: a care ethics inquiry into physicians' late modern suffering.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Legitimizing incapacity: discursive choices in Norwegian sickness certificates.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Access systems in general practice: a systematic scoping review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Insights from end-of-career general practitioners on changing working conditions and generational differences: considerations for future strategies.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Article
- Suitability of issuing sickness certifications in remote consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed method study of GPs' experiences.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Article
- Job satisfaction and work stress among physicians in Norway and Germany-A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Primary care for all: lessons for Canada from peer countries with high primary care attachment.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023Article
- Changes in work tasks and organization of general practice in Norway during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from a comparative international study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Patient activation in adults attending appointments in general practice: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- The impact of clinical experience on working tasks and job-related stress: a survey among 1032 Norwegian GPs.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a Digital Self-management Platform for Patients With Chronic Illness in Primary Care: Qualitative Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Hospital physicians´ working hour characteristics and sleep quality: a cross-sectional analysis of realized working hour and survey data.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Coding quality of deaths and its impact on elderly unintentional fall mortality data from 1990 to 2019: a retrospective analysis of the WHO Mortality Database.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRising workload in general practice has been a recent cause for concern in several countries; this is also the case in Norway. Long working hours and heavy workload seem to affect recruitment and retention of regular general practitioners (RGPs). We investigated Norwegian RGPs' workload in terms of time used on patient-related office work, administrative work, municipality tasks and other professional activities in relation to RGPs, and gender, age, employment status and size of municipality.
methodsIn early 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 4716 RGPs in Norway. In addition to demographic background, the RGP reported minutes per day used on various tasks in the RGP practice prospectively during 1 week. Working time also included additional tasks in the municipality, other professional work and on out-of-hours primary health care. Differences were analysed by chi square test, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA.
resultsAmong 1876 RGPs (39.8%), the mean total working hours per week was 55.6, while the mean for regular number of working hours was 49.0 h weekly. Men worked 1.5 h more than women (49.7 vs. 48.2 h, p = 0.010). Self-employed RGPs work more than salaried RGPs (49.3 vs. 42.5 h, p < 0.001), and RGPs age 55-64 years worked more than RGPs at age 30-39 (51.1 vs. 47.3 h, p < 0.001). 54.1% of the regular working hours was used on face-to-face patient work.
conclusionsNorwegian RGPs have long working hours compared to recommended regular working hours in Norway, with small gender differences. Only half of the working time is used on face-to-face consultations. There seems to be a trend of increasing workload among Norwegian GPs, at the cost of direct patient contact. Further research should address identifying factors that can reduce long working hours.
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.