ArticleBMC health services research2025
The extent to which medical specialists provide Clinical Work-Integrating Care (CWIC) and their perceived role-responsibility: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAwareness among medical specialists about patient work concerns is important because work and health are linked. In Clinical Work-Integrating Care (CWIC), specialists adopt the notion that work can affect health, and medical actions can affect work participation, and they act according to that notion. This study aims to assess the extent to which specialists provide CWIC and to obtain perceptions of medical specialists about their professional role-responsibility in providing CWIC.
methodsThis cross-sectional mixed-methods study involved quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews with medical specialists. The self-developed 18-item questionnaire evaluated the extent and type of CWIC provision (rating scale 0-4; Never = 0 to Always = 4) and how role-responsibility was perceived, while the interviews offered more in-depth insights. Descriptive statistics for the questionnaire data and thematic analyses for the interview data were applied.
resultsWe attained 160 questionnaires (female 64%, 93% non-surgical specialists) and 11 interviews (female 64%, 91% non-surgical specialists). Specialists often asked patients about work (mean score 3.1), sometimes about work history (mean score 2.2) and the conversation about work was usually started by the specialist (mean score 2.9). Conversations about work often concerned the influence of work on disease (2.4) and the influence of disease (2.5) or treatment (2.1) on work ability, but rarely about the legal aspects related to sick leave (1.5). The specialists' perceived role-responsibility was summarized in three themes: 1) understanding that work and health (problems) are linked including asking patients about work and investigating work factors, 2) supporting work participation within a specialist's expertise including focus on patients' health and prevention of sick leave, and 3) possibilities and limitations of the healthcare system including work participation as treatment goal and cooperation with occupational health care.
conclusionsMedical specialists in our survey usually asked about patients' work, but they often did not take a work history. Limitations within the healthcare system hinder comprehensive work-integrating support by specialists, defining the boundaries of CWIC to within hospital care.
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.