Evidence needs, training demands, and opportunities for knowledge translation in social security and insurance medicine: A European survey

Autor: Robert Kneepkens, Ilona Autti-Rämö, Susanne Weinbrenner, Emilie Friberg, Jan L. Hoving, Andreas Klipstein, Rebecca Weida-Cuignet, Wout de Boer, Sergio Vargas-Prada, Christiaan Van Haecht, Adrian Verbel, Gert Lindenger, Nadine Agosti, Regina Kunz, Frederieke G. Schaafsma
Přispěvatelé: Public and occupational health, APH - Quality of Care, APH - Societal Participation & Health, APH - Methodology
Rok vydání: 2021
Předmět:
Zdroj: Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, Vol 53, Iss 4, p jrm00179 (2021)
Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 53(4). Foundation for Rehabilitation Information
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 53(4). Foundation for Rehabilitation Information
Kunz, R, Verbel, A, Weida-Cuignet, R, Hoving, J L, Weinbrenner, S, Friberg, E, Klipstein, A, Van Haecht, C, Autti-Rämö, I, Agosti, N, Vargas-Prada, S, Kneepkens, R, Lindenger, G, de Boer, W & Schaafsma, F G 2021, ' Evidence needs, training demands, and opportunities for knowledge translation in social security and insurance medicine : A European survey ', Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. jrm00179 . https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2821
ISSN: 1651-2081
1650-1977
Popis: OBJECTIVE: To perform a European survey of the evidence needs and training demands of insurance medicine professionals related to professional tasks and evidence-based practice. DESIGN: International survey. SUBJECTS: Professionals working in insurance medicine. METHODS: Experts designed an online questionnaire including 26 questions related to 4 themes: evidence needs; training demands; evidence-seeking behaviour; and attitudes towards evidence-based medicine. Descriptive statistics were presented by country/conference and the total sample. RESULTS: A total of 782 participants responded. Three-quarter of participants experienced evidence needs at least once a week, related to mental disorders (79%), musculoskeletal disorders (67%) and occupational health (65%). Guidelines (76%) and systematic reviews (60%) were the preferred types of evidence and were requested for assessment of work capacity (64%) and prognosis of return-to-work (51%). Evidence-based medicine was thought to facilitate decision-making in insurance medicine (95%). Fifty-two percent of participants felt comfortable finding, reading, interpreting, and applying evidence. Countries expressed similar needs for reviews on typical topics. CONCLUSION: This study reveals evidence gaps in key areas of insurance medicine, supporting the need for further research, guidelines and training in evidence-based insurance medicine. Importantly, insurance medicine professionals should recognize that evidence-based practice is crucial in producing high-quality assessments.
Databáze: OpenAIRE