Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32340611›Full record

ReviewBMC family practice2020

Assessing work capacity - reviewing the what and how of physicians' clinical practice.

P Nordling, G Priebe, C Björkelund, G Hensing

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. What is the future of the fit note?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

P NordlingSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Box 453, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. paula.nordling@gu.se.
G PriebeSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Box 453, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
C BjörkelundSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Box 453, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
G HensingSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Box 453, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare 2016-07419
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough a main task in the sickness certification process, physicians' clinical practice when assessing work capacity has not been thoroughly described. Increased knowledge on the matter is needed to better understand and support the certification process. In this review, we aimed to synthesise existing qualitative evidence to provide a clearer description of the assessment of work capacity as practiced by physicians.

methodSeven electronic databases were searched systematically for qualitative studies examining what and how physicians do when they assess work capacity. Data was analysed and integrated using thematic synthesis.

resultsTwelve articles were included. Results show that physicians seek to form a knowledge base including understanding the condition, the patient and the patient's workplace. They consider both medical and non-medical aspects to affect work capacity. To acquire and process the information they use various skills, methods and resources. Medical competence is an important basis, but not enough. Time, trust, intuition and reasoning are also used to assess the patient's claims and to translate the findings into a final assessment. The depth and focus of the information seeking and processing vary depending on several factors.

conclusionThe assessment of work capacity is a complex task where physicians rely on their non-medical skills to a higher degree than in ordinary clinical work. These skills are highly relevant but need to be complemented with access to appropriate resources such as understanding of the associations between health, work and social security, enough time in daily work for the assessment and ways to better understand the patient's work place. Also, the notion of an "objective" evaluation is questioned, calling for a greater appreciation of the complexity of the assessment and the role of professional judgement.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceGeneral PractitionersWork Capacity EvaluationAbsenteeismHumansPhysician's RoleQualitative ResearchSick LeavePhysiciansReviewSick leaveWork abilityWork capacity evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32340611
PMCPMC7187489

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.