IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0212276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of prognosis by physicians involved in work disability evaluation: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • René J Kox
  • Jan L Hoving
  • Jos H Verbeek
  • Maria J E Schouten
  • Carel T J Hulshof
  • Haije Wind
  • Monique H W Frings-Dresen

Abstract

Background: Assessment of prognosis of work functioning is a challenging aspect of work disability evaluations. To gain insight into this process, we conducted a qualitative study to determine the aspects considered and the difficulties, needs and potential solutions affecting the prognosis assessment by physicians performing disability evaluations. Methods: In-depth, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 20 physicians performing disability evaluations for the Dutch social security institute: the national institute for employee benefit schemes. Verbatim transcripts were independently analyzed by two researchers using MAXQDA software until significant themes emerged and data saturation was achieved. Results: The responses that emerged from the interviews were clustered in three primary themes. The first theme was “Aspects considered by physicians in assessing prognosis.” When making a prognosis, physicians considered the following medical issues: nature and severity of disease, the role of treatment, course of the disease, external information, and medical evidence. Patient-related issues and physician-related aspects were also distinguished. Patient-related aspects concerned the patients’ work perspectives and coping or recovery behavior. Physician-related aspects concerned awareness of the physician’s own role and reflection on aspects such as empathy for clients and ethical considerations. The second theme was “Difficulties physicians face in assessing prognosis,” which included challenges during the assessment of diseases of a complex or less concrete nature, applying prognostic evidence to the individual, and lack of time when seeking prognostic evidence. The third theme concerned “Needs and solutions” formulated by physicians that facilitated the prognostic assessment. It consisted of continuous education, better collaboration with medical specialists and/or labor experts, and the use of prognostic tools such as checklists, apps or internet applications incorporating evidence on prognosis. Conclusions: Physicians identified several medical and patient-related aspects that elucidated the prognosis assessment. Given the variety of challenges and the need for further support found in the current study, future research should focus on the development and evaluation of training, tools, and guidelines to improve prognosis assessment by physicians.

Suggested Citation

  • René J Kox & Jan L Hoving & Jos H Verbeek & Maria J E Schouten & Carel T J Hulshof & Haije Wind & Monique H W Frings-Dresen, 2019. "Assessment of prognosis by physicians involved in work disability evaluation: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-17, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0212276
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212276
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212276&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0212276?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0212276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.