RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Comparing assessments of incapacity to work in patients with subjective health complaints (SHC) by physicians from 5 different European countries. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHOD: General practitioners from Norway (n=56), Sweden (n=29), Denmark (n=41), France (n=46) and occupational and insurance physicians from the Netherlands (n=93) watched and assessed incapacity to work in nine video vignettes of patients with SHC. We subsequently analysed differences between assessments (whether or not there was incapacity to work) by country, with Norway as a reference, as well as differences between general practitioners from the four countries and occupational and insurance physicians using a generalised linear mixed model. RESULTS: Assessments of incapacity to work by physicians from the 5 countries were generally very similar. However, compared to Norwegian general practitioners, Swedish general practitioners (odds ratio (OR) of 0.43 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.23-0.79) and Dutch occupational and insurance physicians (OR of 0.55 with 95% CI of 0.36-0.86) concluded less often that the patients in the videos were unable to work. There were no differences between general practitioners from the other 2 European countries and those from Norway. The Dutch occupational and insurance physicians also concluded less often that there was an incapacity to work compared to all general practitioners from the other 4 European countries (OR of 0.67 with 95% CI of 0.49-0.93). CONCLUSION: There are significant differences between assessments of incapacity to work in patients with SHC between countries and professional groups, but these differences are generally small. Potential explanations for these differences could be found in occupational and insurance medicine specialist training and in the existence of professional guidelines.
Asunto(s)
Médicos Generales/psicología , Médicos Laborales/psicología , Evaluación de Capacidad de Trabajo , Comparación Transcultural , Estudios Transversales , Europa (Continente) , Francia , Humanos , Países Bajos , Noruega , SueciaRESUMEN
Purpose The purpose of this study was to obtain consensus among physicians of several medical specialties on the level of limitations to work-related functioning of people with persistent "medically unexplained" physical symptoms (PPS). Methods A modified Delphi study was conducted with 15 physicians of five different medical specialties. The study involved two email rounds and one meeting. In each round, the physicians prioritized the level of limitations in 78 work-related functioning items for four different PPS cases. These items were based on the Dutch Functional Ability List, national guidelines and scientific literature regarding the International Classification of Functioning. Results In all four cases, the physicians reached consensus on the level of limitations to work-related functioning in 49 items. The physicians reported the highest number and level of limitations for PPS of the back and lower extremities, but they reported hardly any limitations for PPS of the abdomen and genitals. For PPS of the head, they reported mainly limitations to personal and social functioning; for PPS of the neck, back and upper or lower extremities, they reported mainly limitations to dynamic movements and static postures. The physicians could not reach consensus on limitations in the category of working hours. Conclusion Physicians reached consensus on the level of limitations in a substantial part of work-related functioning items for PPS. There was a difference in the number and severity of limitations between different cases of PPS. The assessment of functioning seems to be based more on the specific impairment than on the disease.