Advertisement

Adaptation of a Guide to Equip Employers to Manage the Gradual Return to Work of Individuals with a Musculoskeletal Disorder

  • Julie BouffardEmail author
  • Marie-José Durand
  • Marie-France Coutu
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose The gradual return to work (GRTW) of injured workers poses numerous challenges for workplaces. The aim of this study was to provide employers with an adapted tool to support them in managing GRTWs following a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD), by adapting the Guide for estimation of margin of manoeuvre (Durand et al. in 7th international scientific conference on prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, 2010) and then evaluating the acceptability of the adapted version. Methods A mixed methods design was used. Content experts were surveyed about the content and form of a first version of the adapted tool. Proposed modifications were then discussed in a group meeting until consensus was reached on the changes to be made. The acceptability of the new version was determined by conducting semi-structured interviews of potential users. A thematic analysis of the verbatim transcript was performed. Results Nine experts reached a consensus on 20 modifications, which yielded a tool comprising an instruction guide and a planning worksheet. The eight companies consulted found the tool acceptable, useful, and pertinent, but also identified a few changes to be made. Conclusion The use of original methods made it possible to adapt the content of the tool while taking evidence-based data and user needs into account, all of which contributed to its acceptance. The tool will support employers and standardize management of GRTWs following MSD-related sick leaves. Possible avenues for future research emerged from this study: evaluate the acceptability of new formats and a transdiagnostic version of the tool, and consult workers.

Keywords

Return-to-work Musculoskeletal diseases Workplace Knowledge transfer Guideline 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The principal author wishes to express her gratitude to the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST) for awarding her a master’s degree scholarship that enabled her to conduct this study, and to the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and the Research Chair in Work Rehabilitation (J. Armand Bombardier ― Pratt & Whitney Canada), for both their financial support in the form of a study scholarship and their logistical support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Julie Bouffard, Marie-José Durand, and Marie-France Coutu declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Research Ethics Committee of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants for their inclusion in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Loisel P, Anema JR. Handbook of work disability prevention and management. New York: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van den Heuvel S, van der Zwaan L, van Dam L, Oude Hengel K, Eekhout I, van Emmerik M, Oldenburg C, Brück C, Janowski P. Wilhelm C. Estimating the costs of work-related accidents and ill-health: an analysis of European data sources. Luxembourg: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA); 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD. Sickness. Disability and Work: Breaking the barriers. A synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Woolf AD, Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(9):646–656.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krause N, Dasinger LK, Neuhauser F. Modified work and return to work: a review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil. 1998;8(2):113–139.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kosny A, Brijnath B, Singh N, Allen A, Collie A, Ruseckaite R, Mazza D, Grad D. Uncomfortable bedfellows: employer perspectives on general practitioners’role in the return-to-work process. Policy Pract Health Saf. 2015;13(1):65–76.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche R-L, Irvin E, The Workplace-based Return to Work Literature Review Group. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(4):257–269.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor K, Daniel J. Musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace: The role of HR and line managers. Occup Health. 2015;67(3):18–19.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durand M-J, Nastasia L, Coutu M-F, Bernier M. Practices of return-to-work coordinators working in large organizations. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(1):137–147.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coole C, Watson PJ, Drummond A. Low back pain patients’ experiences of work modifications; a qualitative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11(277):1–10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Durand M-J, Corbière M, Coutu M-F, Reinharz D, Albert V. A review of best work-absence management and return-to-work practices for workers with musculoskeletal or common mental disorders. Work. 2014;48(4):579–589.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Durand M-J, Vézina N, Loisel P, Richard M-C. Developing a guide for measuring the concept of margin of manoeuvre. In 7th international scientific conference on prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (PREMUS). 2010. Angers (France).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Durand M-J, Vézina N, Baril R, Loisel P, Richard M-C, Ngomo S. La marge de manoeuvre de travailleurs pendant et après un programme de retour progressif au travail - Définitions et relations avec le retour à l'emploi (Workers’ margin of manoeuvre during and after a gradual-return-to-work program—definitions and relationship to the return to work). Montréal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail; 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):452–457.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Contandriopoulos A-P, Bélanger L, Nguyen H. Savoir préparer une recherche: La définir, la structurer, la financer (Knowing how to prepare for a study: defining, structuring and funding it). Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal; 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Creswell JW. A framework for design. In: Creswell JW, editor. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oak: SAGE; 2003. pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2010.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bouffard J. Outiller les employeurs dans la gestion du retour progressif au travail de personnes présentant un trouble musculosquelettique: Adaptation du guide d’évaluation de la marge de manœuvre (Adaptation of a guide to equip employers to manage the gradual return to work of individuals with a musculoskeletal disorder). Master’s thesis. Université de Sherbrooke; 2018.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Albert V, Durand M-J, Pepin G. TRIAGE - Une technique structurée sollicitant l’opinion d’experts en vue d’atteindre un consensus (TRIAGE—A structured technique for collecting expert’s opinions and obtaining consensus). In: Corbière M, Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé (Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods in humanities, social sciences and health research). Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2014. pp. 305–325.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gervais M, Pépin G, Carrière M. TRIAGE ou comment adapter une technique de recherche à l’intervention clinique en ergothérapie (TRIAGE or how to adapt a research technique to clinical interventions in occupational therapy). Revue québécoise d’ergothérapie. 2000;9:11–15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fortin M-F, Gagnon J. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche (Foundations and stages of the research process). 2nd ed. Montréal: Chenelière Éducation; 2010.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coutu M-F, Légaré F, Durand M-J, Corbière M, Dawn S, Bainbridge L, Labrecque M-É. Operationalizing a shared decision making model for work rehabilitation programs: a consensus process. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):141–152.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carifio J, Perla R. Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Med Educ. 2008;42(12):1150–1152.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘‘laws’’ of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010;15(5):625–632.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burgers JS, Grol RPTM, Zaat JOM, Spies TH, van der Bij AK, Mokkink HGA. Characteristics of effective clinical guidelines for general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(486):15–19.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Veld C, Rutten G, Mokkink H. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998;317(7162):858–861.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hayward RSA, Guyatt GH, Moore K-A, McKibbon A, Carter AO. Canadian physicians’ attitudes about and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines. Can Med Assoc. 1997;156(12):1715–1723.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hibble A, Kanka D, Pencheon D, Poole F. Guidelines in general practice: the new Tower of Babel ? BMJ. 1998;317(7162):862–863.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carlsen B, Kjellberg PK. Guidelines; from foe to friend? Comparative interviews with GPs in Norway and Denmark. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(17):1–8.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lilian N. L’analyse de contenu dans l’étude des représentations sociales (Content analysis in the study of social representations). Sociologies; 2006; 1–13.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Muhr T. ATLAS/ti—A prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qualitative Sociol. 1991;14(4):349–371.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vézina M, Cloutier E, Stock S, Lippel K, Fortin É, Delisle A, et al. Enquête québécoise sur des conditions de travail, d’emploi et de santé et de sécurité du travail (Quebec survey on working and employment conditions and occupational health and safety) (EQCOTESST). Montréal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail; 2011.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lortie M, Faye C, Laroche E, Desmarais L, Denis D, Nastasia I, et al. Bilan des études sur les guides de pratique en santé: qu’en retirer pour la santé et la sécurité au travail (Review of studies on health practice guidelines: what can be learned for occupational health and safety). Perspect Interdiscip Trav Santé. 2013; 15(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Durand M-J, Vézina N, Baril R, Loisel P, Richard M-C, Ngomo S. Margin of manoeuvre indicators in the workplace during the rehabilitation process: a qualitative analysis. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(2):194–202.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Faye C, Lortie M, Desmarais L. Guide sur le transfert des connaissances à l’intention des chercheurs en santé et sécurité du travail (Knowledge transfer guide for occupational health and safety researchers). Montréal, Québec. Canada: Réseau de recherche en santé et en sécurité du travail du Québec; 2007.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGuire C, Kristman VL, Shaw W, Williams-Whitt K, Reguly P, Soklaridis S. Supervisor autonomy and considerate leadership style are associated with supervisors’ likelihood to accommodate back injured workers. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(3):589–598.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nordqvist C, Holmqvist C, Alexanderson K. Views of laypersons on the role employers play in return to work when sick-listed. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(1):11–20.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    James C, Southgate E, Kable A, Rivett DA, Guest M, Bohatko-Naismith J. The return-to-work coordinator role: Qualitative insights for nursing. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):220–227.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nastasia I, Coutu M-F, Cibotaru A. Prévention de l'incapacité prolongée chez les travailleurs indemnisés pour troubles musculo-squelettiques. Une revue systématique de la littérature. (Prevention of prolonged disability in workers compensated for musculoskeletal disorder. A systematic review of the literature). Montréal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail; 2013.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Winter J, Issa MH, Quaigrain R, Dick K, Regehr JD. Evaluating disability management in the Manitoban construction industry for injured workers returning to the workplace with a disability. Can J Civ Eng. 2016;43(2):109–117.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, Cassidy JD. Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropr Man Therap. 2016;24(32):1–23.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shaw W, Hong Q-N, Pransky G, Loisel P. A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):2–15.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Carlsen B, Glenton C, Pope C. Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs’ attitudes to clinical practice guidelines. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(545):971–978.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shekelle PG, Kravitz RL, Beart J, Marger M, Wang M, Lee M. Are nonspecific practice guidelines potentially harmful? A randomized comparison of the effect of nonspecific versus specific guidelines on physician decision making. Health Serv Res. 2000;34(7):1429–1448.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lortie M, Desmarais L, Faye C, Laroche E, Faurie I. Le transfert de connaissances au RRSSTQ: bilan et perspectives (The transfer of knowledge in the RRSSTQ (Quebec occupational health and safety research network): assessment and prospects). Relat Ind. 2013;68(4):567–589.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schünemann HJ, Woolf S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci. 2012;7(60):1–8.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Corbière M, Negiri A, Durand M-J, St-Arnaud L, Briand C, Fassier J-B, et al. Development of the Return-to-work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) and validation with workers suffering from a common mental disorder or musculoskeletal disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(3):329–341.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addict Behav. 2002;27(6):989–993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversité de SherbrookeLongueuilCanada

Personalised recommendations