Clinician-Patient Agreement about the Work Disability Problem of Patients Having Persistent Pain: Why it Matters

16Citations
Citations of this article
55Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background Studies from different fields documenting the differences between clinicians' and workers' representations have not elucidated where the differences exist or how they can be resolved. Purpose To define and describe scenarios depicting the differences between clinical judgment, workers' representations about their disability and clinicians' interpretations of these representations. Methods A multiple case-study design was used. Semi-structured prospective interviews were conducted at four points in time, with five clinicians managing 12 cases of workers having persistent pain and participating in an evidence-based work rehabilitation program. Results Four scenarios depicting differences in representations were found, but not all the differences necessarily had a negative impact on the program outcomes. For the clinicians, clear identification of the problem was important to allow for the use of concrete, pragmatic strategies. For the workers, congruence between the proposed strategy and their representations was crucial. Conclusion During rehabilitation, the objectives must be acceptable to both parties or the proposed strategy must, at least, make sense to the patient. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Coutu, M. F., Baril, R., Durand, M. J., Côté, D., & Cadieux, G. (2013). Clinician-Patient Agreement about the Work Disability Problem of Patients Having Persistent Pain: Why it Matters. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 23(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9387-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free