Factors Associated with Employer Support for Injured Workers During a Workers’ Compensation Claim
- 172 Downloads
Purpose The employer/worker relationship can be an important catalyst for—or obstacle to—successful return to work (RTW). An understanding of factors associated with an injured worker’s relationship with their employer, and employer involvement in RTW planning, is warranted. Methods Analysis of n = 8808 cross-sectional survey responses from injured workers in nine Australian workers’ compensation (WC) jurisdictions. Workers completed a telephone survey between 6 and 24 months post-WC claim acceptance. Factors associated with the worker’s perception of employer support were examined using ordinal regression. Factors associated with employer provision of RTW plans were examined using logistic regression. Results Factors associated with employer support included being aged over 50 years, not having a mental health condition, better self-rated health and less time between injury and claim. Factors associated with having a RTW plan included being female, not having a mental health condition and working for a self-insurer. Factors associated with having a written RTW plan included being female and being under 50 years. There was wide variation in the provision of RTW plans between WC jurisdictions. Conclusions There are strong associations between worker, claim and injury-related factors and the injured worker’s experience of employer support. Identification of workers at risk of receiving inadequate support during the RTW process may enable interventions to improve support and RTW outcomes.
KeywordsReturn to work plan Return to work Workplace injury Mental health conditions
This publication uses data supplied by Safe Work Australia and has been compiled in collaboration with state, territory and Commonwealth workers’ compensation regulators. The views expressed are the authors and are not necessarily the views of Safe Work Australia or the state, territory and Commonwealth workers’ compensation regulators. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Ms Dianne Beck for assistance with data management, and Mr Shane Compton from the Social Research Centre for assistance with data provision and interpretation.
This project was funded by Safe Work Australia and WorkSafe Victoria through a grant to AC. Safe Work Australia provided the data for the study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study received ethics approval from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC) on 8 October 2014 (CF14/2995-2014001663).
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Waddell G, Burton K. Is work good for your health and well-being? London: TSO; 2006.Google Scholar
- 12.State of Queensland. Guidelines for standard for rehabilitation. Brisbane: Office of Industrial Relations; 2016.Google Scholar
- 13.Safe Work Australia. Workers’ compensation legislation and psychological injury. Safe Work Australia: Canberra; 2014.Google Scholar
- 14.NSW Government. Draft guidelines for workplace return to work programs. Gosford: State Insurance Regulatory Authority; 2016.Google Scholar
- 15.Safe Work Australia. Comparison of workers’ compensation arrangements in Australia and New Zealand. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2017.Google Scholar
- 17.Australian Bureau of Statistics. Labour Force Australia. Canberra, Australia; 2018.Google Scholar
- 18.Lane T, Collie A, Hassani-Mahmooei B. What is the incidence of work-related conditions and their impact on time lost from work by state and territory, age, gender and injury type? Melbourne: Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research; 2014.Google Scholar
- 19.Collie A. Australian workers’ compensation systems. Understanding the Australian Healthcare System. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Elsevier Health; 2016.Google Scholar
- 20.Social Research Centre. Return to Work Survey: 2016 Summary Research Report (Australia and New Zealand). Melbourne: Safe Work Australia; 2016.Google Scholar
- 21.Social Research Centre. Return to Work Survey: 2013/14 Summary Research Report (Australia and New Zealand). Melbourne: Safe Work Australia; 2014.Google Scholar
- 22.Social Research Centre. Return to Work Survey: 2012/13 Summary Research Report (Australia and New Zealand). Melbourne: Safe Work Australia; 2013.Google Scholar
- 23.Australian Safety and Compensation Council. Type of occurrence classification system (Revision 1). 3rd ed. Canberra: Australian Government; 2008.Google Scholar
- 25.StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 15.1. College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2017.Google Scholar
- 27.Pomaki G, Franche RL, Khushrushahi N, Murray E, Lampinen T, Mah P. Best practices for return-to-work/stay-at-work interventions for workers with mental health conditions. Vancouver: Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC; 2010.Google Scholar
- 28.Cooney R, Mwila NK. Improving return to work (RTW) coordinator training. Melbourne: Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research; 2013.Google Scholar