ArticleJMA journal2026
Operationalizing Clinical Competence among Occupational Physicians: Three Domains and Five Cross-Cutting Processes Identified by Reflexive Thematic Analysis.
Article in JMA journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Occupational physicians (OPs) in Japan share a common medical foundation with other clinicians, but they primarily work in advisory and preventive settings. How this medical foundation is recontextualized and operationalized as clinical competence in everyday occupational practice remains underexplored. Clarifying this process may help to better understand how biomedical reasoning is applied to workplace decision-making beyond diagnosis and treatment. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) of semi-structured interviews with 12 OPs in Japan. Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework guided iterative coding, theme development, and interpretive synthesis. Credibility was enhanced through reflexive, iterative analytic procedures. Results: Analysis identified three interrelated practice domains: (1) statutory occupational health duties, including fitness-for-work and return-to-work judgment, (2) advice and negotiation with stakeholders, and (3) individualized support and follow-up, and five cross-cutting processes: role adaptation, reinterpretation of prior clinical expertise, responsiveness to legal and organizational contexts, collaborative negotiation, and reflective learning. Across these domains, OPs selectively mobilized clinical knowledge to address often undifferentiated health concerns, translating biomedical reasoning into context-sensitive judgments, advice, and coordination under workplace constraints. Despite substantial variability in how clinical competence was understood, recurring operational patterns were observed across participants' accounts. Conclusions: Clinical competence in occupational medicine was not defined by fixed standards or uniformly shared expectations. Nevertheless, practice remained operationally coherent through recurring patterns across three domains and five processes, through which OPs selectively mobilized and translated clinical reasoning in response to role-related, organizational, and regulatory demands. Rather than prescribing a single competence standard, these findings provide an empirical basis for understanding how general medical training is adapted for preventive and advisory practice in occupational health, and may inform reflective, case-based learning in heterogeneous training settings.
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.