Oncologists’ experiences of and prerequisites for sickness certification tasks: A nationwide questionnaire study

Söderman, Mirkka; Wennman-Larsen, Agneta; Alexanderson, Kristina; Svärd, Veronica; Friberg, Emilie

doi:10.1111/ecc.13414

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A questionnaire was developed to collect information from RTW coordinators about their work with patient rehabilitation and the RTW process, patient selection, work tasks, work situation, collaboration with stakeholders, educational background, and sociodemographic characteristics. The questionnaire, which contained 41 questions plus partial questions, was developed from previous questionnaires about the work of physicians [27,28] and coordinators [29] with patients on SA. It was also discussed in a reference group comprising coordinators, physicians and other stakeholders in the RTW process.…”

Section: The Coordinator Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinators in the return-to-work process: Mapping their work models

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In recent decades, many countries have implemented return-to-work coordinators to combat high rates of sickness absence and insufficient collaboration in the return-to-work process. The coordinators should improve communication and collaboration between stakeholders in the return-to-work process for people on sickness absence. How they perform their daily work remains unexplored, and we know little about to what extent they collaborate and perform other work tasks to support people on sickness absence. This study examines which work models return-to-work coordinators use in primary healthcare, psychiatry and orthopaedics in Sweden. Methods A questionnaire was sent to all 82 coordinators in one region (89% response rate) with questions about the selection of patients, individual patient support, healthcare collaboration, and external collaboration. Random forest classification analysis was used to identify the models. Results Three work models were identified. In model A, coordinators were more likely to select certain groups of patients, spend more time in telephone than in face-to-face meetings, and collaborate fairly much. In Model B there was less patient selection and much collaboration and face-to-face meetings. Model C involved little patient selection, much telephone contact and very little collaboration. Model A was more common in primary healthcare, model C in orthopaedics, while model B was distributed equally between primary healthcare and psychiatry. Conclusion The work models correspond differently to the coordinator’s assignments of supporting patients and collaborating with healthcare and other stakeholders. The differences lie in how much they actively select patients, how much they collaborate, and with whom. Their different distribution across clinical contexts indicates that organisational demands influence how work models evolve in practice.

show abstract

Section: The Coordinator Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinators in the return-to-work process: Mapping their work models

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical Work-Integrating Care in Current Practice: A Scoping Review

Kluit,

van Bennekom,

Beumer

et al. 2023

J Occup Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Clinical work-integrating care (CWIC) refers to paying attention to work participation in a clinical setting. Working patients may benefit from CWIC. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent and nature to which medical specialists provide CWIC and what policies and guidelines oblige or recommend specialists to do. Methods A scoping review was conducted. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies on the extent and nature of CWIC and supplemented by gray literature on policies and guidelines. Six main categories were defined a priori. Applying a meta-aggregative approach, subcategories were subsequently defined using qualitative data. Next, quantitative findings were integrated into these subcategories. A separate narrative of policies and guidelines using the same main categories was constructed. Results In total, 70 studies and 55 gray literature documents were included. The main findings per category were as follows: (1) collecting data on the occupation of patients varied widely; (2) most specialists did not routinely discuss work, but recent studies showed an increasing tendency to do so, which corresponds to recent policies and guidelines; (3) work-related advice ranged from general advice to patient–physician collaboration about work-related decisions; (4) CWIC was driven by legislation in many countries; (5) specialists sometimes collaborated in multidisciplinary teams to provide CWIC; and (6) medical guidelines regarding CWIC were generally not available. Conclusion Medical specialists provide a wide variety of CWIC ranging from assessing a patient’s occupation to extensive collaboration with patients and other professionals to support work participation. Lack of medical guidelines could explain the variety of these practices.

show abstract