Dirk Moßhammer1, Martina Michaelis2, Jakob Mehne3,4, Stefan Wilm5, Monika A Rieger4. 1. Institute of General Practice/Family Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Österbergstraße 9, 72074, Tübingen, Germany. dirk.mosshammer@uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Freiburg Research Centre for Occupational and Social Medicine, Bertoldstraße 27, 79098, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Institute of General Practice/Family Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Österbergstraße 9, 72074, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Institute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, 72074, Tübingen, Germany. 5. Institute of General Practice, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
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.
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.
Keywords:
Cooperation; Cooperative behaviour; General practice; Occupational medicine
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; Shireen Harbin; Fabricio F Vieira; Emma Irvin; Colette N Severin; Behdin Nowrouzi-Kia; Margaret Tiong; Anil Adisesh Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2022-05-05
Authors: Susanne Voelter-Mahlknecht; Jan M Stratil; Rainer Kaluscha; Gert Krischak; Monika A Rieger Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Florian Junne; Martina Michaelis; Eva Rothermund; Felicitas Stuber; Harald Gündel; Stephan Zipfel; Monika A Rieger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Eva Rothermund; Martina Michaelis; Marc N Jarczok; Elisabeth M Balint; Rahna Lange; Stephan Zipfel; Harald Gündel; Monika A Rieger; Florian Junne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390