Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Are there differences in the return to work process for work-related psychological and musculoskeletal injuries? A longitudinal path analysis

Abstract

Purpose

To examine differences in the return to work (RTW) process for workers’ compensation claimants with psychological injuries compared to those with musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries.

Methods

We collected data from 869 workers’ compensation claimants in Victoria, Australia, at three time points over a 12-month period (21% with psychological injury claims). RTW was assessed through self-report. Potential mediators were identified at the personal, health-care provider, workplace and system levels. The relationships between injury type, mediating factors and RTW were assessed using path analysis, with adjustment for confounders through inverse probability weighting.

Results

We observed better RTW outcomes for claimants with MSK injuries (compared to those with psychological injuries) at T1 and T2, but not at T3. We also observed differences between psychological injuries and MSK injuries and all but two of the mediating factors examined. These differences, in particular related to supervisor response to injury, consultative RTW planning and offers of accommodation, as well as differences in mental health symptoms, explained approximately two-thirds of differences in RTW between injury types at T1. Differences in RTW at T2 were explained by mediating factors, and differences in RTW at T1.

Conclusion

Claimants with work-related psychological injuries experience a variety of challenges in RTW compared to those with MSK injuries. While treating and preventing further exacerbation of psychological symptoms should remain an important part of the rehabilitation process, other modifiable factors, in particular supervisor response to injury and consultative RTW planning and modified duties, should be prioritised to reduce inequalities in RTW across injury types.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    From here on we use the term “injury” and “injuries” to refer to both injury/injuries and illness/illnesses.

References

  1. 1.

    Dewa C, Chau N, Dermer S (2010) Examining the comparative incidence and costs of physical and mental health-related disabilties in an employed population. J Occup Environ Med 52(7):758–762

  2. 2.

    Safe Work Australia (2013) The Incidence of accepted workers’ compensation claims for mental stress in Australia. Safe Work Australia, Canberra

  3. 3.

    Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J (2005) Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil 15(4):607–631

  4. 4.

    Cullen K, Irvin E, Collie A, Clay FJ, Gensby U, Jennings P, Hogg-Johnson S, Kristman V, Laberge M, McKenzie D, Newnam S, Palagyi A, Sheppard D, Shourie S, Steenstra I, Van Eerd D, Amick BC III (2017) Effectiveness of workplace interventions in return-to-work for musculoskeletal, pain-related and mental health conditions: an update of the evidence and messages for practitioners. J Occup Rehabil 28(1):1–15

  5. 5.

    Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, Cassidy JD (2016) Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropr Man Therap 24(1):32

  6. 6.

    Andersen MF, Nielsen KM, Brinkmann S (2012) Meta-synthesis of qualitative research on return to work among employees with common mental disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health 38(2):93–104. https://doi.org/10.6271/sjweh.3257

  7. 7.

    Black O, Keegel T, Sim M, Collie A, Smith P (2018) The Effect of self-efficacy on return-to-work outcomes for workers with psychological or upper-body musculoskeletal injuries: a review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil 28(1):16–27

  8. 8.

    de Vries H, Fishta A, Weikert B, Rodriguez Sanchez A, Wegewitz U (2018) Determinants of sickness absence and return to work among employees with common mental disorders: a scoping review. J Occup Rehabil 28(3):393–417

  9. 9.

    Ervasti J, Joensuu M, Pentti J, Oksanen T, Ahola K, Vahtera J, Kivimaki M, Virtanen M (2017) Prognostic factors for return to work after depression-related work disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res 95:28–36

  10. 10.

    Nigatu YT, Liu Y, Uppal M, McKinney S, Gillis K, Rao S, Wang JL (2017) Prognostic factors for return to work of employees with common mental disorders: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 52:1205–1215

  11. 11.

    White M, Wagner SL, Schultz IZ, Murray E, Bradley SM, Hsu V, McGuire L, Schulz W (2015) Non-modifiable worker and workplace risk factors contributing to workplace absence: a stakeholder-centred synthesis of systematic reviews. Work 52(2):353–373

  12. 12.

    van Vilsteren M, van Oostrom SH, De Vet HCW, Franche RL, Boot CR, Anema JR (2015) Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006955.pub3

  13. 13.

    Mikkelsen MB, Rosholm M (2018) Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions aimed at enhancing return to work for sick-listed workers with common mental disorders, stress-related disorders, somatoform disorders and personality disorders. Occup Environ Med 75(9):675–686

  14. 14.

    Vargas-Prada S, Demou E, Lalloo D, Avila-Palencia I, Sanati KA, Sampere M, Freer K, Serra C, Macdonald EB (2016) Effectiveness of very early workplace interventions to reduce sickness absence: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Scand J Work Environ Health 42(4):261–272

  15. 15.

    Lilley R, Davie G, Langley J, Ameratunga S, Derrett S (2013) Do outcomes differ between work and non-work-related injury in a universal injury compensation system? Findings form the New Zealand prospective outcomes of injury study. BMC Public Health 13:995. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-995

  16. 16.

    Comcare (2012) Costs of psychological injury. Commonwealth Government of Australia. https://www.comcare.gov.au/safety__and__prevention/your_working_environment/psychological_injury/costs_of_psychological_injury. Accessed 7 Sep 2012

  17. 17.

    Dimitriadis C, LaMontagne AD, Lilley R, Hogg-Johnson S, Sim MR, Smith P (2017) Cohort profile: Workers’ compensation in a changing Australian labour market: the return to work (RTW) study. BMJ Open 7:e016366. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016366

  18. 18.

    Vogel N, Schandelmaier S, Zumbrunn T, Ebrahim S, de Boer WEL, Busse JW, Kunz R (2017) Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD0011618

  19. 19.

    Steenstra IA, Lee H, de Vroome EMM, Busse JW, Hogg-Johnson SJ (2012) Comparing current definitions of return to work: a measurement approach. J Occup Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9349-6

  20. 20.

    Lane T, Lilley R, Hogg-Johnson S, LaMontagne AD, Sim MR, Smith P (2018) A prospective cohort study of the impact of return-to-work coordinators in getting injured workers back on the job. J Occup Rehabil 28(2):298–306

  21. 21.

    Jetha A, LaMontagne AD, Lilley R, Hogg-Johnson S, Sim MR, Smith P (2018) Workplace social system and sustained return-to-work: a study of supervisor and co-worker supportiveness and injury reaction. J Occup Rehabil 28(3):486–494

  22. 22.

    Victoria WorkSafe (2008) VCODE: The nature of injury/disease classification system for Victoria. WorkSafe Victoria, Melbourne

  23. 23.

    Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, van Tulder M, Webster B (2005) Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil 15(4):507–524

  24. 24.

    Loisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Vezina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, Lariviere C, Tremblay C (2001) Disability prevention: new paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Disabil Manag Health Outcomes 9(7):351–360

  25. 25.

    Kessler RC, Greif Green J, Gruber MJ, Sampson NA, Bromet E, Cuitan M, Furukawa TA, Gureje O, Hinkov H, Hu C-Y, Lara C, Lee S, Mneimneh Z, Myer L, Oakley-Browne M, Posada-Villa J, Sagar R, Carmen Viana M, Zaslavsky AM (2010) Screening for serious mental illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: results from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 19(Supp 1):4–22

  26. 26.

    Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiript E, Howes MJ, Normand S-L, Manderscheid RW, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM (2003) Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60:184–189

  27. 27.

    Cole DC, Mondloch MV, Hogg-Johnson S, for the Early Claimant Cohort Prognostic Modelling Group (2002) Listening to injured workers: how recovery expectations predict outcomes—a prospective study. CMAJ 166(6):749–754

  28. 28.

    Breaugh JA (1985) The measurement of work autonomy. Hum Relat 38(6):551–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503800604

  29. 29.

    Breaugh JA (1998) The development of a new measure of global work autonomy. Educ Psychol Meas 58(1):119–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058001010

  30. 30.

    Hernan MA, Robins JM (2016) Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am J Epidemiol 183(8):758–764

  31. 31.

    Cole SR, Hernan MA (2008) Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol 168(6):656–664

  32. 32.

    Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55

  33. 33.

    Kline RB (1998) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press, New York

  34. 34.

    Muthen LK, Muthen BO (2010) Mplus user's guide, 6th edn. Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles

  35. 35.

    Long JS (1997) Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

  36. 36.

    Newman DA (2014) Missing data: five practical guidelines. Organ Res Methods 17(4):372–411

  37. 37.

    Cocker F, Sim MR, Kelsall H, Smith PM (2018) Injury reporting, employer lodgement and compensation payment delays and RTW outcomes in long-term injured workers. J Occup Environ Med 60(7):622–630

  38. 38.

    Tate CU (2005) On the overuse and misuse of mediation analysis: it may be a matter of timing. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 37(4):235–246

  39. 39.

    Kline RB (2015) The mediation myth. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 37(4):202–213

  40. 40.

    Carnide N, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Cote P, Breslin FC, Severin CN, Bultmann U, Krause N (2016) Course of depressive symptoms following a workplace injury: a 12-month follow-up update. J Occup Rehabil 26(2):204–215

  41. 41.

    Orchard C, Carnide N, Smith P (2019) How Does perceived fairness in the workers’ compensation claims process affect mental health following a workplace injury? J Occup Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09844-3

  42. 42.

    Neilsen K, Yarker J, Munir F, Bultmann U (2018) IGLOO: an integrated framework for sustainable return to work in workers with common mental disorders. Work Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1438536

  43. 43.

    Bastien M-F, Corbiere M (2019) Return-to-work following depression: what work accomodations do employers and human resources directors put in place? J Occup Rehabil 29(2):423–432

  44. 44.

    LaMontagne AD, Martin A, Page KM, Reavley N, Noblet A, Milner A, Keegel T, Smith P (2014) Workplace mental health: developing an integrated approach. BMC Psychiatry 14:131

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is funded through the Australian Research Council (ARC) linkage grant (Project number LP130100091). During the study, PS was supported by the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council (DE120101580), and a Research Chair in Gender, Work and Health from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We would like to acknowledge the Social Research Centre (SRC) for undertaking the interviews. We acknowledge the assistance of WorkSafe Victoria, SafeWork Australia, Office of The Age Discrimination Commissioner, Beyond Blue and the Australian Industry Group as part of the project. The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Author information

Correspondence to Peter Smith.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

See Appendix Table 4.

Table 4 Distribution of covariates across injury type prior and subsequent to addition of inverse probability weights (N = 869)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, P., LaMontagne, A.D., Lilley, R. et al. Are there differences in the return to work process for work-related psychological and musculoskeletal injuries? A longitudinal path analysis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01839-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Return to work
  • Occupational injuries
  • Psychological injury
  • Path analysis