Table 2.

Coding frame of categories included in this study, and coding examples

Suggestions related to

Regulation

M1: “…everywhere where there’s an interface with the workplace, that’s where we [OPs] play an important role. I don’t understand why it’s not standard for us to be the actors during the progressive reintegration phase. It should be like that as a matter of principle, but it’s not.” OP II, 150

Financing

Interviewer: “Missing diagnoses. Would it be possible to make it more attractive to GPs by increasing the remuneration for a rehabilitation application?” M1: “Absolutely.” F2: “I agree.”M1: “Absolutely.” RP II, 335–338

Technical and technological solutions

F4: “I can also imagine that calls are considered bothersome by the GP. If we could write an email now,… I believe that would be more helpful, if they could chose the time when to read this information themselves, or so.” RP I, 178–280

Organizational procedures

M1: “What you could do [to provide the occupational physician information if the patient doesn’t fully trust him/her], would be to simply reduce it to the sociomedical assessment. So that he [the OP] doesn’t get all of the other information, just the sociomedical assessment.” RP I, 121–125

Education and Information

M2: “…the company physicians are always rather exotic for the other two groups, doing something that a general practitioner doesn’t really know about, and the same for the reha-physician. And this lack of knowledge about each other naturally leads to misjudgments.” OP II, 101–102

Promoting cooperation

M3: “… it would naturally be nice if, when you work in a company, and you always had similar or the same rehabilitation clinics where you sent people. Then contact could gradually be built up.” OP II, 254–257

In brackets: section in the MAXQDA file, in bold: pseudonymization codes of the interview partners

F female participant, M male participant, OP FGD with occupational health physician, RP FGD with rehabilitation physicians, GP FGD with general practitioners