Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 591–600 | Cite as

Health and Illness Representations of Workers with a Musculoskeletal Disorder-Related Work Disability During Work Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Study

  • Marie-France CoutuEmail author
  • Raymond Baril
  • Marie-José Durand
  • Daniel Côté
  • Geneviève Cadieux
Article

Abstract

Introduction Distinctions between disease and illness have been criticized for being too theoretical. In practice, however, it may help explain gaps in understanding and miscommunication between health care professionals and patients/injured workers, since each has their own perception of reality. To reduce the gap between health care professionals and patients in understanding the definition of disease, this paper documents general representations of health, illness and work-related musculoskeletal disorders and their influence on the work rehabilitation program. Methods A qualitative methodology was used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 participants (male, female) recruited when they were starting an intensive interdisciplinary work rehabilitation program for chronic pain due to a musculoskeletal disorder. Interviews were performed at three points during the program and 1 month after discharge. Results First, participants described health and illness in terms of: (1) illness prototype; (2) the absence or presence of symptoms; (3) physical health and capacities; (4) engaging in a healthy lifestyle; (5) maintaining independence; (6) preserving mental well-being; and (7) healing from accidents or injuries. A second observation was that rehabilitation success depended on workers transitioning from a less mechanistic to a more functional view of health. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of identifying and acknowledging workers’ health, illness and WRMSD representations to facilitate their return to work.

Keywords

Beliefs Attitudes Disability Work rehabilitation Musculoskeletal disorder 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was made possible through the participation of workers on long-term absences from work. Their commitment to the project was demonstrated on more than one occasion by their ready availability for the interviews. This study was supported by a joint grant from the Institut de recherché Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST) and the Chaire de recherche en réadaptatin au travail J. Armand Bombardier and Pratt & Whitney Canada. MFC and MJD also wish to thank the Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Canada for their salary awards.

References

  1. 1.
    Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J. Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. British Med J. 2005;330:1239–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henderson M, Glozier N, Elliott KH. Long term sickness absence. British Med J. 2005;330:802–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Commission de la Santé et Sécurité au Travail. Statistiques sur les affections vertébrales, 1998–2001. Québec: CSST; 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eisenberg L. Disease and illness. Distinctions between professional and popular ideas of sickness. Cul Med Psychiatr. 1977;1(1):9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Law I, Widdows H. Conceptualising health: insights form the capability approach. Health Care Anal. 2008;16:303–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Courvoisier LM, Mauron A. He found me very well; for me, I was still feeling sick’: the strange worlds of physicians and patients in the 18th and 21st centuries. J Med Ethics: Med Hum. 2002;28:9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coutu MF, Baril R, Durand MJ, Côté D, Rouleau A, Cadieux G. Transforming the meaning of pain: an important step for the return to work. WORK: J Prev Assess Rehabil. 2010;35:209–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Svensson T, Karlsson A, Alexanderson K, Nordqvist C. Shame-inducing encounters. Negative emotional aspects of sickness-absentees’ interactions with rehabilitation professionals. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(3):183–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beutler LE. David and Goliath: when empirical and clinical standards of practice meet. Am Psychol. 2000;55(9):997–1007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massé R. Culture et santé publique. Boucherville: Gaëtan Morin; 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abric J-C. La recherche du noyau central et de la zone muette des représentations sociales. In: Abric J-C, editor. Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales. Ramonville Saint-Agne: Eres; 2003. p. 59–80.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jodelet D. Les représentations sociales dans le champ des sciences humaines. Paris: France Presses, Universitaires de France; 1989. Les représentations sociales.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Twaddle AC. Health decisions and sick role variations: an exploration. J Health Soc Behav. 1969;10(2):105–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bishop GD. Understanding the understanding of illness: lay disease representations. In: Skelton JA, Croyle RT, editors. The mental representation of health and illnbess: models and applications. NY: Verlag; 1991. p. 32–59.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baumann LJ, Cameron LD, Zimmerman RS, Leventhal H. Illness representations and matching labels with symptoms. Health Psychol. 1989;8(4):449–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer D, Leventhal H, Gutmann M. Common-sense models of illness: the example of hypertension. Health Psychol. 1985;4:115–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Easterling DV, Leventhal H. Contribution of concrete cognition to emotion: neutral symptoms as elicitors of worry about cancer. J Appl Psychol. 1989;74(5):787–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Croyle RT, Jemmott IJB. Psychological reaction to risk factor testing. In: Skelton JA, Croyle RT, editors. Mental representation in health and illness. NY: Verlag; 1991. p. 85–107.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beaton DE, Tarasuk JN, Katz JN, Wright JG, Bombardier C. Are you better? A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery. Arth Care Res. 2001;45:270–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mora PA, Robitaille C, Leventhal H, Swigar M, Leventhal EA. Trait negative affect relates to prior-week symptoms, but not to reports of illness episodes, illness symptoms, and care seeking among older persons. Psychosom Med. 2002;64:436–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scheier MF, Carver CS. Goals and confidence as self-regulatory elements underlying health and illness behavior. In: Cameron L, Leventhal H, editors. The self-regulation of health and illness behavior. NY: Routledge; 2003. p. 17–41.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coutu MF, Durand MJ, Baril R, Labrecque ME, Ngomo S, Côté D, et al. A review of assessment tools of illness representations: are these adapted for a work disability prevention context? J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(4):347–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coutu MF, Baril R, Durand MJ, Côté D, Rouleau A. Representations: an important key to understanding workers’ coping behaviours during rehabilitation and the return-to-work process. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):522–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fortin F, Côté J, Filion F, editors. Les devis de recherche non expérimentaux. In: Fondement et étapes du processus de recherche. Montréal: Chenelière éducation; 2006. p. 188–207.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hadjistavropoulos HD, Craig KD. Acute and chronic low back pain: cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62(2):341–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Durand MJ, Vachon B, Loisel P, Berthelette D. Constructing the program impact theory for an evidence-based work rehabilitation program for workers with low back pain. WORK: J Prevent Assess Rehabilitation. 2003;21(3):233–42.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Loisel P, Abenhaim L, Durand P, Esdaile JM, Suissa S, Gosselin L, et al. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine. 1997;22(24):2911–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Loisel P, Gosselin L, Durand P, Lemaire J, Poitras S, Abenhaim L. Implementation of a participatory ergonomics program in the rehabilitation of workers suffering from subacute back pain. Appl Ergon. 2001;32(1):53–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leventhal H, Brissette I, Leventhal EA. The common sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In: In Cameron L, Leventhal H, editors. The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour. London: Routledge; 2003. p. 42–65.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leventhal H, Meyer D, Gutmann M, Haynes RB, Mattson ME, Engebretson O. The role of theory in the study of compliance to high blood pressure regimens. In: Anonymous, editor. Patient compliance to prescribed antihypertensive medication regimens: a report to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH publication no. 81–2102). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1980.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lloyd KR, Jacob KS, Patel V, Louis L, Bhugra D, Mann AH. The development of the short explanatory model interview and its use among primary-care attenders with common mental disorders. Psychol Med. 1998;28(5):123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weiss M. Explanatory model interview catalogue: framework for comparative study of illness. Transcult Psychiatr. 1997;34(6):235–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kleinman A. Patients and healers in the context of culture: an exploration of the borderland between anthropology, medicine, and psychiatry. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1980. (Comparative studies of health systems and medical care; no. 3).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Loisel P, Durand MJ, Baril R, Langley A, Falardeau M. Décider pour faciliter le retour au travail: étude exploratoire sur les dimensions de la prise de décision dans une équipe interdisciplinaire de réadaptation au travail. Montréal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité au travail; 2004.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Muhr T. ATLAS/ti: a prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qual Sociol. 1991;14(4):349–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Landry R. L’analyse de contenu. In: Gauthier B, editor. Recherche sociale de la problématique à la collecte de données. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 1997. p. 329–56.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Radley A, Billig M. Accounts of health and illness: dilemmes and representations. Sociol Health Illn. 1996;18(2):220–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Canguilhem G. Le normal et le pathologique, augmenté de Nouvelles réflexions concernant le normal et le pathologique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France/Quadrige; 1966.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Herzlich C. Santé et maladie : analyse d’une représentation sociale. Paris: Mouton; 1969.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bibeau G, Pelletier L. Le discours sur la santé et la maladie dans deux populations de la ville de Québec. Ottawa: Musées nationaux du Canada; 1985.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pierret J. Les significations sociales de la santé: Paris, L’Essonne, L’Hereault. In: Augé M, Herzlich C, editors. Le sens du mal: anthopologie, histoire, sociologie de la maladie. Paris: Éditions des archives contemporaines; 1984. p. 217–56.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Iwama MK, Thomson NA, Macdonald RM. The Kawa model: the power of culturally responsive occupational therapy. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(14):1125–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kondo T. Cultural tensions in occupational therapy practice: considerations from a Japanese vantage point. Am J Occup Ther. 2004;58(2):174–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Horne R. Treatment perceptions and self-regulation. In: Cameron L, Leventhal H, editors. The self-regulation of health and illness behavior. NY: Routledge; 2003. p. 138–54.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Diefenbach MA, Leventhal H. The common sense model of illness representation: theoretical and practical considerations. J Soc Distress Homeless. 1996;5:11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Horne R, Weinman J. Predicting treatment adherence: an overview of theoretical models. In: Myers LB, Midence K, editors. Adherence to treatment in medical conditions. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic; 1998. p. 25–50.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Broadbent E, Petriea KJ, Maina J, Weinman J. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60(6):631–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Leventhal H, Mora PA. Is there a science of the processes underlying health and illness behaviours? A comment of Maes and Karoly. Appl Psychol. 2005;54(2):255–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Flick U. La perception quotidienne de la santé et de la maladie. Aperçu général et introduction. In: Flick U, editor. La perception quotidienne de la santé et de la maladie. Théories subjectives et représentations sociales. Paris: L’Harmattan; 1993. p. 11–71.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Guba EG, Lincoln YS, editors. Chapter 1: the coming of age of evaluation. In: Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1988. p. 22–49.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Laperrière A. Les critères de scientificité des méthodes qualitatives. In: Poupart J, Deslauriers J-P, Groulx L-H, Laperrière A, Mayer R, Pires A, editors. La recherche qualitative. Enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Montreal: Gaëtan Morin; 1997. p. 365–88.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Miles BM, Huberman AM. Analyse des données qualitatives. 2nd ed. Brussells: De Boeck Université; 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-France Coutu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raymond Baril
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marie-José Durand
    • 1
  • Daniel Côté
    • 3
  • Geneviève Cadieux
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, School of RehabilitationUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada
  2. 2.School of RehabilitationUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  3. 3.Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travailMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations