"Noting everything systematically" would be quite an advance in certain quarters.
In the intervention group sick leave dropped from 52% to 25.2%, while in the control group it went from 49.7% to 45.7%.
I met a group of UFO spotters once, but I knew they were genuine as they all had laminated ID cards with their photos and every thing.
They are comparing care as usual which often includes giving them sick leave, with an intervention that wants to avoid using sick leave. Or course there will be a massive difference..Just read this paper. They found a remarkable strong effect for sick leave (GPs recorded sick leave from the participants’ medical records).
In the intervention group sick leave dropped from 52% to 25.2%, while in the control group it went from 49.7% to 45.7%.
And apparently, 1/3 of all GPs in Norway have taken the ICIT course.Convincing results
The evaluation committee for the travel grant consisted of Anette Fosse, Anja Brænd and Trygve Skonnord. They write this in the justification for the award:
"Based on her own practice and her own perceived inadequacy towards a common patient group, the prize winner has developed a structured conversation tool that she is exploring the effect of in her PhD project. The results of the intervention are convincing, with effects on function, symptoms, quality of life and sick leave, and the study was published in a highly ranked international journal. The project has obvious general medical relevance, maintains high quality and originality, and the prize winner has a good ability to pedagogically communicate the tool and the research."
It is estimated that up to 40% of all consultations in primary care involve patients presenting with MUPS.
I simply don't believe that figure! But then they use the weasel words "up to" about the number.
A level of bias so high and quality so low that most professions wouldn't even look at the study, because every single evidence they use is absurdly much better than this. They are really showing how poor their judgment is, how obvious it is that they value a study's quality based on whether they like what it says, rather than actual quality.It gets worse.
This study won a prize from the GP research fund of the Norwegian Association of GPs for it’s «high quality»:
It's also completely expected! Of course they regularly see problems they don't understand. This is perfectly normal and probably a huge under-estimate, in that they don't count the many problems they just wave off unwritten because they are completely inconsequential.I simply don't believe that figure! But then they use the weasel words "up to" about the number.
Trygve Skonnord, one of the members of the committee for that prize, did his PhD on acupuncture for acute lower back pain and claims he’s «interested in method development in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in primary health care».A level of bias so high and quality so low that most professions wouldn't even look at the study, because every single evidence they use is absurdly much better than this. They are really showing how poor their judgment is, how obvious it is that they value a study's quality based on whether they like what it says, rather than actual quality.
Honestly it feels like a joke. It's too surreal to see stuff like this. Most professions wouldn't even wipe their asses with studies like this, and they give it prizes for high quality. Again they are really showing why they struggle so hard to deliver better outcomes. The bubble of medicine has been closed off for too long, it completely lacks any diversity of perspective and it shows.
Like someone who just put a bag of hot-dog buns next to a pack of sausages winning a prestigious cooking prize. Completely absurd.