ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine1998
Development and evaluation of a quality assessment instrument for occupational physicians.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation research in occupational health services: general principles and a systematic review of empirical studies.Occupational and environmental medicine · 1999Pooled it
- Relation between indicators for quality of occupational rehabilitation of employees with low back pain.Occupational and environmental medicine · 1999Trial
- Supervisory behaviour as a predictor of return to work in employees absent from work due to mental health problems.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2004Article
- Quality of rehabilitation among workers with adjustment disorders according to practice guidelines; a retrospective cohort study.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2003Article
- Return to work of cancer survivors: a prospective cohort study into the quality of rehabilitation by occupational physicians.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2003Article
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
objectivesTo develop and apply a method for assessing the quality of the process of occupational health care for individual patients.
methodsThe scientific literature was studied to develop a method to assess the quality of the process of occupational rehabilitation for workers with low back pain. The method was applied to health care and university workers with low back pain who were rehabilitated by their occupational physicians.
resultsAssessment of quality of care is regarded as a four step approach. Firstly, guidelines should be developed and implemented. Secondly, indicators for quality and criteria to demarcate good and deviant quality were derived from the guidelines. Thirdly, a method for data collection was chosen. Finally, quality was scored. For occupational rehabilitation, there was some deviance from the guidelines for most cases, especially in continuity of care with a deviant rate of 47%. Other indicators deviated from 1.4%-17.4%. Occupational physicians agreed on the relevance of the indicators and criteria, but for three indicators they evaluated the criteria as too rigid. They did not agree with their own performance scores in 66% of the deviant cases.
conclusionAssessing the quality of the process of occupational health care with this method is an asset to present methods, but more specific criteria are needed for a more sensitive assessment.
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.