ArticleBMC primary care2026
Even the COVID-19 pandemic didn´t change anything: insights from a trend study on the cooperation of general practitioners and occupational health physicians in Germany.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
backgroundThe working fields of general practitioners (GPs) and occupational health physicians (OHPs) overlap manifoldly. Yet, cooperation between both groups is often scarce as has been revealed by studies from several countries. During the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs dealt with many work-related counselling topics. We conducted a trend study surveying German GPs and OHPs in 2014/2015 (GPOP-0 study) and 2023/2024 (GPOP-Trend) to analyse trends regarding a potential change of attitudes towards interdisciplinary cooperation over time, before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsThe trend study used repeated cross-sectional surveys and an identical questionnaire for GPs and OHPs, which was sent by postal mail to both groups. The questionnaire covered topics regarding cooperation and attitudes towards both professional groups, as well as questions to assess the perceived quality of cooperation with regard to counselling purposes specific for the COVID-19 pandemic (only in GPOP-Trend). The statistical analysis followed a prior published analysis plan, and comprised an exploratory factor analysis, Mann-Whitney U tests, and regression analyses.
resultsMore than 1,000 physicians took part in both surveys (GPOP-0: 585 GPs and 473 OHPs, response rate 35%; GPOP-Trend: 482 GPs and 532 OHPs, response rate: 30%). We identified hardly any cooperation between these two groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. In cases where cooperation took place, it was rated more positively by OHPs than by GPs in retrospect. Comparing the total survey data of both time points revealed that attitudes among GPs and OHPs changed only little over time. The strongest predictor for the attitudes surveyed was the variable "professional group" in all regression models. This predictor was also the most relevant, when investigating the influence of different variables during the COVID-19 pandemic on attitudes towards cooperation of GPs and OHPs.
conclusionsSocialization within a professional group seems to be the determining factor, and therefore attitudes remain stable as described by Social Identity Theory. We assume that interventions that focus solely on strengthening cooperation between GPs and OHPs therefore have only a very limited effect. We therefore suggest another approach with interventions targeting primarily on patient outcomes and the design of clear interfaces or clinical pathways.
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.