ArticleBMJ open2021
Physician's use of sickness certification guidelines: a nationwide survey of 13 750 physicians in different types of clinics in Sweden.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality assessment in sickness certificates - changes over an eight-year period in Sweden and associated factors.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Medical certification in sickness benefit scheme (II): practical approaches for evaluating work disability.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore physicians' experiences of using the national sickness certification guidelines introduced in 2007 and the types of information they used, in general and in different types of clinics.
designCross-sectional survey.
settingMost physicians working in Sweden in 2017.
participantsA questionnaire was sent to 34 718 physicians; 54% responded. Analyses were based on answers from the 13 750 physicians who had sick leave cases. OUTCOME MEASURES: To what extent the guidelines were used and what type of information from them that was used.
resultsTen years after the sickness certification guidelines were introduced in Sweden, half of the physicians used them at least once a month. About 40% of physicians in primary healthcare and occupational health services used the guidelines every week. The type of information used varied; 53% used recommendations about duration and 29% about degree of sick leave. Using information about function and activity/work capacity, respectively, was more common within primary healthcare (37% and 38%), psychiatry (42% and 42%), and occupational health services (35% and 41%), and less common in surgery and orthopaedic clinics (12% and 12%) who more often used information about duration (48% and 53%). Moreover, 10% stated that the guidelines were very, and 24% fairly problematic to apply. Half (47%) stated that the guidelines facilitated their contacts with patients and 29% that they improved quality in their management of sick leave cases. More non-specialists, compared with specialists, found that the guidelines facilitated contacts with patients (OR 3.28, 95% CI 3.04 to 3.55).
conclusionsThe majority of the physicians used the sickness certification guidelines, although this varied with type of clinic. Half stated that the guidelines facilitated patient contacts. Yet, some found it problematic to apply the guidelines. Further development of the guidelines is warranted as well as more knowledge about them among physicians.
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.