ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2025
Innovation and testing in general practitioners' practice - the challenging path from idea to new practice.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimsGeneral practitioners (GPs) need tools and working methods to deal with sick listed patients' multifaceted needs as well as to collaborate with stakeholders such as the employer or the social welfare counsellor. This study explored GPs' experiences when testing the mapping and dialogue tool ISIVET in sick leave follow-up.
methodsIndividual interviews with seven GPs in salaried positions testing ISIVET in sick leave follow-up in a Norwegian municipality. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using systematic text condensation.
resultsFive categories of experiences were identified: 1) positive perceptions of ISIVET in terms of visualizing the complexity of health and work conditions, 2) procedures and collection of research data made it difficult to test the tool, 3) unclear ownership and anchoring, 4) difficulties with experimentation in demanding working days and 5) close follow-up during training followed by a lack of sharing experiences.
conclusionsDespite positive GP perceptions of ISIVET in sick leave follow-up, the testing 'failed' due to difficulties during the testing overshadowing the benefits. This was primarily due to poor technological and practical adaptions of the use of the tool in a busy GP's working day. Secondly, a weak local anchoring with lack of follow-up and sharing of experiences, influenced the use of ISIVET negatively. If further testing of ISIVET in primary care is carried out, it would be necessary to simplify and adapt the use of the tool extensively. Given the positive perceptions of ISIVET, one could consider new adaptions and further testing according to these experiences.
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.