BackgroundHow physicians handle sickness-certification is essential in the sickness-absence process. Few studies have focused this task of physicians' daily work. Most previous studies have only included general practitioners. However, a previous study indicated that this is a common task also among other physicians. The aim of this study was to gain detailed knowledge about physicians' work with sickness-certification and of the problems they experience in this work.MethodsA comprehensive questionnaire regarding sickness-certification practice was sent home to all physicians living and working in Sweden (N = 36,898; response rate: 61%). This study included physicians aged <65 years who had sickness-certification consultations at least a few times a year (n = 14,210). Descriptive statistics were calculated and odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for having different types of related problems, stratified on clinical settings, using physicians working in internal medicine as reference group.ResultsSickness-certification consultations were frequent; 67% of all physicians had such, and of those, 83% had that at least once a week. The proportion who had such consultations >5 times a week varied between clinical settings; from 3% in dermatology to 79% in orthopaedics; and was 43% in primary health care. The OR for finding sickness-certification tasks problematic was highest among the physicians working in primary health care (OR 3.3; CI 2.9-3.7) and rheumatology clinics (OR 2.6; CI 1.9-3.5). About 60% found it problematic to assess patients' work capacity and to provide a prognosis regarding the duration of work incapacity.ConclusionsSo far, most interventions regarding physicians' sickness-certification practices have been targeted towards primary health care and general practitioners. Our results indicate that the ORs for finding these tasks problematic were highest in primary health care. Nevertheless, physicians in some other clinical settings more often have such consultations and many of them also find these tasks problematic, e.g. in rheumatology, neurology, psychiatry, and orthopaedic clinics. Thus, the results indicate that much can be gained through focusing on physicians in other types of clinics as well, when planning interventions to improve sickness-certification practice.

BackgroundSurvivers of stroke or transient ischaemic attacks (TIA) are at risk of new vascular events. Our objective was to study primary health care patients with stroke/TIA regarding their knowledge about risk factors for having a new event of stroke/TIA, possible associations between patient characteristics and patients' knowledge about risk factors, and patients' knowledge about their preventive treatment for stroke/TIA.MethodsA questionnaire was distributed to 240 patients with stroke/TIA diagnoses, and 182 patients (76%) responded. We asked 13 questions about diseases/conditions and lifestyle factors known to be risk factors and four questions regarding other diseases/conditions ("distractors"). The patients were also asked whether they considered each disease/condition to be one of their own. Additional questions concerned the patients' social and functional status and their drug use. The t-test was used for continuous variables, chi-square test for categorical variables, and a regression model with variables influencing patient knowledge was created.ResultsHypertension, hyperlipidemia and smoking were identified as risk factors by nearly 90% of patients, and atrial fibrillation and diabetes by less than 50%. Few patients considered the distractors as stroke/TIA risk factors (3-6%). Patients with a family history of cardiovascular disease, and patients diagnosed with carotid stenosis, atrial fibrillation or diabetes, knew these were stroke/TIA risk factors to a greater extent than patients without these conditions. Atrial fibrillation or a family history of cardiovascular disease was associated with better knowledge about risk factors, and higher age, cerebral haemorrhage and living alone with poorer knowledge. Only 56% of those taking anticoagulant drugs considered this as intended for prevention, while 48% of those taking platelet aggregation inhibitors thought this was for prevention.ConclusionsKnowledge about hypertension, hyperlipidemia and smoking as risk factors was good, and patients who suffered from atrial fibrillation or carotid stenosis seemed to be well informed about these conditions as risk factors. However, the knowledge level was low regarding diabetes as a risk factor and regarding the use of anticoagulants and platelet aggregation inhibitors for stroke/TIA prevention. Better teaching strategies for stroke/TIA patients should be developed, with special attention focused on diabetic patients.

No abstract

ObjectivesDiagnoses-specific sickness certification guidelines were recently introduced in Sweden. The aim of this study was to investigate to which extent general practitioners (GPs) used these guidelines and how useful they found them, 1 year after introduction.DesignA cross-sectional questionnaire study. A comprehensive questionnaire about sickness certification practices in 2008 was sent to all physicians living and working in Sweden (n=36 898, response rate 60.6%). In all, 19.7% (n=4394) of the responders worked as GPs.SettingPrimary healthcare in all Sweden.ParticipantsThe participating GPs who had consultations concerning sickness certification at least a few times a year (n=4278, 97%).Main outcome measuresDescriptive statistics and prevalence ratios for the 11 questionnaire items about the use and usefulness of the sickness certification guidelines.ResultsA majority (76.2%) of the GPs reported that they used the guidelines. In addition, 65.4% and 43.5% of those GPs reported that the guidelines had facilitated their contacts with patients and social insurance officers, respectively. The guidelines also helped nearly one-third (31.5%) of the GPs to develop their competence and improve the quality of their management of sickness certification consultations (33.5%). About half experienced some problems when using the guidelines and 43.7% wanted better competence in using them. A larger proportion of non-specialists and of GPs with fewer sickness certification consultations had benefitted from the guidelines.ConclusionsThe national sickness certification guidelines implemented in Sweden were widely used by GPs already a year after introduction. Also, the GPs consider the guidelines useful in several respects, for example, in patient contacts and for competence development.

A majority of the GPs found sickness certification problematic. Most problems were related to professional competence in insurance medicine. Better possibilities to develop, maintain, and practise such professionalism are warranted.