Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between motivation for return to work and actual return to work, or increased employability among people on long-term sick leave. Materials and methods: Data by responses to questionnaires was collected from 227 people on long-term sick leave (mean = 7.9 years) due to pain syndrome or mild to moderate mental health conditions who had participated in a vocational rehabilitation intervention. The participants' motivation for return to work was measured at baseline. At 12-month follow-up, change in the type of reimbursement between baseline and at present was assessed and used to categorise outcomes as: "decreased work and employability", "unchanged", "increased employability", and "increased work". Associations between baseline motivation and return to work outcome were analysed using logistic and multinomial regression models. Results: Motivation for return to work at baseline was associated with return to work or increased employability at 12-month follow-up in the logistic regression model adjusting for potential confounders (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.25-4.78). Conclusions: The results suggest that motivation for return to work at baseline was associated with actual chances of return to work or increased employability in people on long-term sick leave due to pain syndrome or mild to moderate mental health conditions. Implication for rehabilitationHigh motivation for return to work seems to increase the chances of actual return to work or increased employability in people on sick leave due to pain syndrome or mild to moderate mental health conditions.The potential impact of motivation for return to work is suggested to be highlighted in vocational rehabilitation.Rehabilitation professionals are recommended to recognise and take into consideration the patient's stated motivation for return to work.Rehabilitation professionals should be aware of that the patient's motivation for return to work might have an impact on the outcome of vocational rehabilitation.

Objective: National sickness certification guidelines were introduced in Sweden in 2007, comprising both overarching and diagnoses-specific recommendations. This study aimed to investigate how general practitioners (GP) used and perceived the usefulness of these guidelines in the sickness certification process close after introduction and 4 years later., Design: Two nationwide cross-sectional surveys in 2008 and 2012., Setting: Swedish healthcare., Participants: Physicians working in primary healthcare and having sickness certification consultations at least a few times per year (n = 4214 in 2008, and n = 4067 in 2012)., Main Outcome Measures: Frequency of use and perceived usefulness of the sickness certification guidelines., Results: Most GPs used the guidelines at least a few times per year (in 2008 74.6%; in 2012 85.2%). In 2008, 44.1% reported a need to develop competence in using the guidelines, compared with 23.3% in 2012. Of those using the guidelines, 36.7% in 2008 and 44.6% in 2012 reported it problematic to write sickness certificates in accordance with the guidelines. Most GPs (89.2% in 2008 and 88.8% in 2012) valued the guidelines beneficial to ensure quality in sickness certification consultations. A larger proportion in 2012 compared with 2008 reported that the guidelines facilitated contacts with patients (61.2%, respectively, 55.6%), as well as with other stakeholders., Conclusions: The guidelines were perceived as useful and beneficial to ensure high quality in sickness certification consultations, and facilitated contacts with patients as well as other stakeholders. In 2012, still one-fourth reported a need to develop more competence in using the sickness certification guidelines.

Background: Many physicians find sickness certification of patients problematic. The aims were to explore problems that physicians in different clinical settings experience with sickness certification tasks in general and with assessment of function, work capacity, and need for sick leave, as well as handling of sick-leave spells of different durations., Methods: Data from a questionnaire sent to 33,144 physicians aged <68 years, living and working in Sweden in 2012 were analysed. The response rate was 57.6%. The study group comprised the 12,933 responders who had sickness certification tasks. Frequencies and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for questions concerning how problematic the physicians experienced different assessments related to patients' function, work capacity, and need for sick leave, as well as handling sick-leave spells of different durations., Results: There were large differences between clinical settings regarding how often and to what extent sickness certification consultations were perceived as problematic. Physicians working in primary health care (PHC) had the highest proportions experiencing sickness certification consultations as problematic at least once a week (49.5%) and as very or fairly problematic (56.6%), followed by physicians working in psychiatry, pain management, or orthopaedics. More than half of the responders found it very or fairly problematic to assess patients' work capacity (57.8%), to make a long-term prognosis about patients' future work capacity (55.7%), and to handle long-term or very long-term sickness certifications (51.9% and 51.8%). The proportions were highest among physicians working in PHC, rheumatology, neurology, or psychiatry., Conclusions: The rates of physicians finding sickness certification task problematic varied much with clinical setting, and were highest among physicians in PHC. More knowledge is needed about the work conditions and prerequisites for optimal handling of sickness certification in different clinical settings.

Physicians' work with sickness certifications is an understudied field. The aims of this study were to gain knowledge of experiences concerning the sickness certification process among physicians working at oncology clinics. In 2008, all physicians working in Sweden (n = 36 898) were sent a questionnaire concerning sick-listing practices. All respondents working at an oncology clinic (n = 428) were included in the current study. Most of the physicians had sickness certification consultations at least weekly (91.3%). More than one fifth (22.3%) reported that they worked at a clinic with a workplace policy regarding the handling of sickness certification and 61.1% reported receiving at least some support in such cases from their immediate manager. Issuing unnecessary long sickness certificates were related to experiencing delicate interactions with patients and to lack of time. To a moderate degree, further competence was requested regarding: different types of compensation in the social insurance system, responsibilities of the Social Insurance Agency and employers, and sickness insurance rules. The large majority of physicians working in oncology reported regularly having consultations involving sickness certification. Overall, they reported few problems, low level of need for more competence regarding sickness certification, and low frequency of issuing sickness absences for longer periods than necessary., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To explore frequencies and experiences with problems in sickness certification consultations among gynecologists and obstetricians in two different years., Design: Cross-sectional surveys on two occasions; in 2004 and 2008., Setting: Gynecological, obstetric and maternal health care., Sample: Physicians working in gynecology, obstetrics or maternal health care in two Swedish counties from two samples: in 2004 (n = 315), and in 2008 (n = 327)., Methods: Data regarding sickness certification consultations were obtained from comprehensive questionnaires that had been mailed to the physicians in two Swedish counties in 2004 and in 2008, respectively., Outcome Measures: Frequencies and types of problems in sickness certification consultations, organizational support, and need to acquire more competence., Results: The majority experienced that patients requested to be on sick leave for a reason other than work incapacity due to disease or injury, at least a few times per year (85% in 2004 and 88% in 2008). The most problematic situation to handle was when the physician and the patient had different opinions about the need for sick leave (2004: 66% and 2008: 58%). The physicians expressed a need for more competence about the options and responsibilities of employers, social insurance officers and physicians in sickness certification cases., Conclusions: Most gynecologists/obstetricians find sickness certification consultations problematic and especially when encountering patients requesting to be on sick leave for reasons other than disease. The physicians expressed a need for more competence in insurance medicine, especially about their own and other stakeholders' options and responsibilities., (© 2013 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Background: Physicians' work with sickness certifications is an understudied field. Physicians' experience of sickness certifying for longer periods than necessary has been previous reported. However, the extent and frequency of such sickness certification is largely unknown. The aims of this study were: a) to explore the frequency of sickness certifying for longer periods than necessary among physicians working in different clinical settings; b) to examine main reasons for issuing sickness certificates for longer periods than necessary; and c) to examine factors associated with unnecessary issued sickness certificates., Methods: In 2008, all physicians living and working in Sweden (a total of 36,898) were sent an invitation to participate in a questionnaire study concerning their sick-listing practices. A total of 22,349 (60.6%) returned the questionnaire. In the current study, physicians reporting handling sickness certification consultations at least weekly were included in the analyses, a total of 12,348., Results: The proportion of physicians reporting issuing sickness certificates for longer periods than actually necessary varied greatly between different types of clinics, with the highest frequency among those working at: occupational medicine, orthopedic, primary health care, and psychiatry clinics; and lowest among those working in: eye, dermatology, ear/nose/throat, oncology, surgery, and infection clinics. Logistic analyses showed that sickness certifying for longer periods than necessary due to limitations in the health care system was particularly common among physicians working at occupational medicine, orthopedic, and primary health care clinics. Sickness certifying for longer periods than necessary due to patient-related factors was much more common among physicians working at psychiatric clinics. In addition to differences between clinics, frequency of sickness certificates issued for longer periods than necessary varied by age, physicians' experiences of different situations, and perceived problems., Conclusions: This study showed that physicians issued sickness certificates for longer periods than actually necessary quite frequently at some types of clinics. Differences between clinics were to a large extent associated with frequency of problems, lack of time, delicate interactions with patients, and need for more competence.