ArticleBMC family practice2020
Management of work-related common mental disorders in general practice: a cross-sectional study.
Article 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of sickness absence among employees with common mental disorders in Sweden- a longitudinal study.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- Managing patients with mental health conditions in family medicine: a qualitative study exploring the experiences of general practitioners' experiences in Switzerland.Family practice · 2026Article
- Work-related distress and professional quality of life in a medical-school workforce: a primary-care occupational-health perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Psychologists' involvement in and experiences of treating patients with stress-related exhaustion in primary care.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Descriptive Study of Patients Treated in a Psychosomatic Internal Medicine Declared by Japanese Family Medicine Clinic.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2023Article
- Implementing work-related Mental health guidelines in general PRacticE (IMPRovE): a protocol for a hybrid III parallel cluster randomised controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) often manage individuals with work-related common mental disorders (CMD: depressive disorders, anxiety and alcohol abuse). However, little is known about the ways in which they proceed. The aim of this study is to analyze GPs' management and patterns of referral to other health professionals of patients with work-related CMD and associated factors.
methodWe used data from a cross-sectional study of 2027 working patients of 121 GPs in the Nord - Pas-de-Calais region in France (April - August 2014). Statistical analyses focused on patients with work-related CMD detected by the GP and examined the ways in which GPs managed these patients' symptoms. Associations between patient, work, GP and contextual characteristics and GPs' management were explored using modified Poisson regression models with robust variance.
resultsAmong the 533 patients with work-related CMD in the study, GPs provided psychosocial support to 88.0%, prescribed psychotropic treatment to 82.4% and put 50.7% on sick leave. Referral rates to mental health specialists and occupational physicians were respectively 39.8 and 26.1%. Several factors including patients' characteristics (occupational and sociodemographic), GPs' characteristics and environmental data were associated with the type of management used by the GP.
conclusionOur study emphasizes the major and often lonesome role of the GP in the management of patients with work-related CMDs. Better knowledge of the way GPs manage those patients could help GPs in their practice, improve patients care and be a starting point to implement a more collaborative care approach.
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.