A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

General practitioners' and occupational health physicians' views on their cooperation: a cross-sectional postal survey. | LitMetric

General practitioners' and occupational health physicians' views on their cooperation: a cross-sectional postal survey.

Int Arch Occup Environ Health

Institute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, 72074, Tübingen, Germany.

Published: April 2016

Purpose: Prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration into the workplace are examples of overlapping work fields of general practitioners (GPs) and occupational health physicians (OPs). In Germany, however, cooperation between GPs and OPs is often lacking or suboptimal. In this article, we present GPs' and OPs' views on a variety of aspects of their cooperation and differences between them.

Methods: Survey questionnaire was developed on the basis of literature research and results of focus group interviews. Cross-sectional postal survey among GPs (n = 1000) and OPs (n = 383) was performed in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Explorative descriptive and logistic regression analyses were carried out (controlling for potential confounders).

Results: Response rates were 31 and 48 %, respectively. Mutual telephone calls were the most frequent contact medium (49 and 91 %, respectively). Both groups considered themselves to have clearly separate areas of responsibility (median = 4, rating scale from 1 "agree not at all" to 5 "agree definitely"). Necessity to cooperate and need to improve cooperation were both rated as 4 (by GPs) and 5 (by OPs), respectively (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon test). Several variables were found to be different by logistic regression analysis of answers from the two groups (e.g. in regard to importance of rehabilitation, primary prevention services, caring for chronically ill workers or changing of workplace conditions). Sensitive topics (e.g. concerning mutual rivalry, remuneration or adherence to medical confidentiality) were also found to be rated differently.

Conclusion: The data show potential interest of both physicians groups to develop cooperation. As the ratings often differed significantly, particularly in regard to statements presented, answers influenced by social desirability are generally unlikely.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1084-4DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

occupational health
8
cross-sectional postal
8
postal survey
8
gps ops
8
logistic regression
8
cooperation
5
general practitioners'
4
practitioners' occupational
4
health physicians'
4
physicians' views
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!