Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40604409›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2025

General practitioners' management of occupational diseases: a qualitative study in French-speaking Switzerland.

Gaubicher Coline, Staeger Philippe, Danuser Brigitta, Abderhalden-Zellweger Alessia, Krief Peggy, Mediouni Zakia

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Gaubicher ColineDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Health, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Staeger PhilippeDepartment of Ambulatory Care, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Danuser BrigittaDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Health, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abderhalden-Zellweger AlessiaDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Health, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Krief Peggy *Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Mediouni Zakia *Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. zakia.mediouni@unisante.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWork-related health problems are a frequent reason for consultation with primary care physicians; however, few studies report on the way general practitioners' (GPs) approach work-related health issues with their patients.

aimTo investigate the practices of Swiss GPs in regarding work-related health issues presented by their patients, and to identify the resources and difficulties they faced.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 GPs, transcribed, and analyzed thematically.

resultsGPs do explore their patients' occupational field. However, the data collected are limited, even though doctors recognize that a high proportion of mental and musculoskeletal disorders may be work-related. Work-related disease insurance issues are a frequent concern in GPs everyday practice, often causing a discomfort regarding these issues. Exchanges between GPs and employers regarding work-related health issues are relatively uncommon but can yield positive outcomes when they occur. Occupational risk prevention is confined to certain high-risk exposures. When asked to express their difficulties in dealing with work-related issues, GPs mention the lack of dedicated time, insurance issues, contact with employers or the lack of it and lack of training. As for resources, GPs mainly identify specialist doctors, but still, only few of them mention occupational physicians.

conclusionsSome work-related pathologies, whether frequent or serious, are not systematically investigated by GPs. This raises the question of their detection and probable under-reporting. To improve anamnesis, identification, and referral practices for occupational health issues, we suggest a targeted training for GPs, strengthened networking among stakeholders-such as occupational physicians, employers and insurers- and a revision of medical billing structures to better support the management of work-related diseases for both GPs and occupational physicians.

Indexed as

General PractitionersOccupational DiseasesPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSwitzerlandGeneral practitionerMedical billingOccupational diseaseOccupational historyOccupational physicianPreventionQualitative analysisWork-related disease

Identifiers

PMID40604409
PMCPMC12220256

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.