Does variation in general practitioner (GP) practice matter for the length of sick leave? A multilevel analysis based on Norwegian GP-patient data
In Norway, as in many countries, the national insurance system is under economic stress from demographic change impacting on the pensions versus contributions balance, and an increasing number of disability and sickness benefit claimants. The general practitioner (GP) is responsible for assessing work capacity and issuing certificates for sick leave based on an evaluation of the patient. Although many studies have analyzed certified sickness absence and predictive factors, no studies assess its variation between patients, GPs or geographical areas within a multilevel framework. Using a rich Norwegian matched patient-GP data set and employing a multilevel random intercept model, the study attempts to disentangle patient, GP and municipality-level variation in the certified sickness absence length for Norwegian workers in 2003. We find that most observed patient and GP characteristics are significantly associated with the length of sick leave (LSL) and medical diagnosis is an important observed factor explaining certified sickness durations. However, 98% of the unexplained variation in the LSL is attributed to patient factors rather than influenced by variation in GP practice or differences in municipality-level characteristics. Our findings indicate that GPs practice variation does not matter much for the patients' LSL. Our results are compatible with a high degree of patient involvement in current general practice. Based on this understanding one may infer that GPs play an advocate role for their patients in Norway, where the patients' own wishes are important when decisions are made.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 70 (2010)
Issue (Month): 10 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:10:p:1590-1598. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.