ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Authorization to Disclose: How Occupational Physicians Interpret Confidentiality in Return-to-Work Negotiations.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo analyze occupational physicians' (OPs) interpretations of confidentiality regarding health information in multistakeholder return-to-work (RTW) negotiations, situated at the intersection of healthcare and working life. MATERIAL AND
methodsReflexive thematic analysis was applied to 14 video-recorded RTW negotiations and 14 interviews with OPs involved in these negotiations.
resultsFour themes were developed, showing how OPs navigate confidentiality by (i) addressing knowledge asymmetries among participants, (ii) balancing their dual role in fostering trust, (iii) constructing confidentiality as depending on employees' willingness to disclose health information, and (iv) approaching confidentiality flexibly to find solutions for RTW. Interpretations varied across and within negotiations, depending on specific situations or negotiation objectives.
conclusionOur study reveals that OPs' aim at restricting discussions on employees' health and respect their autonomy in disclosing health information in RTW negotiations, yet their approach to confidentiality seems complex and situationally flexible. Confidentiality issues compete with other incentives and complicate the collaboration, thus careful attention, ethical considerations, and clearer guidance from policymakers are required. The demanding nature of planning and leading RTW negotiations calls for systematic education of interaction skills in OPs' specialist training. Further research is needed to explore the strategies and meaning-making related to confidentiality in multistakeholder RTW collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41954700What 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.