Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Margin of Manoeuvre Indicators in the Workplace During the Rehabilitation Process: A Qualitative Analysis

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction The task of evaluating workers’ capacity to return to their pre-injury employment or other jobs continues to pose a daily challenge for clinicians. In this study, a concept frequently used in the field of ergonomics, the margin of manoeuvre (MM), was applied during the rehabilitation process. The study identified the indicators of the MM taken into account during the return to work of workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Methods This study used a multiple-case design. A case was defined as a dyad comprising a worker admitted to a work rehabilitation program and the clinician who was managing the return-to-work process. The results were then validated with investigators and expert ergonomists, through group interviews. Content analyses were performed using the conceptual framework for the work activity model adapted from Vézina and the procedures recommended by Miles and Huberman. Results A total of 11 workers, five clinicians, two experts and two investigators participated in this study. The interview analysis process resulted in a more detailed definition of the MM and the identification of 50 indicators. The indicators were classified according to six dimensions: (1) work context; (2) employer’s requirements and expectations; (3) means and tools; (4) worker’s personal parameters; (5) work activity; and (6) impacts of the work situation. Conclusions The more specific indicators identified in this study will allow for more systematic observation of the MM. Subsequent studies will seek to link each indicator described in the model with a specific method of observation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Institut de la Statistique du Québec (ISQ). Enquête sociale et de santé 1998. Sainte-Foy: Les Publications du Québec; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dionne CE, Bourbonnais R, Frémont P, Rossignol M, Stock SR. Le pronostic occupationnel des travailleurs aux prises avec des affections vertébrales. Montréal, QC: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité au travail (IRSST). Report No R-356; 2004.

  3. Elders LA, van der Beek AJ, Burdorf A. Return to work after sickness absence due to back disorders—a systematic review on intervention strategies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2000;73:339–48. doi:10.1007/s004200000127.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec (INSPQ). La prévention des troubles musculosquelettiques liés au travail. Réflexion sur le rôle du réseau de santé publique et orientation proposée pour la santé au travail. Québec: INSPQ; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Leclerc A, Ha C, Roquelaure Y, Goldberg M. La situation épidémiologique des troubles musculo-squelettiques: des définitions et des méthodes différentes, mais un même constat. BEH. 2005;44–45:217–28.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Loisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Vezina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention—new paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Dis Manag Health Outcome. 2001;9:351–60. doi:10.2165/00115677-200109070-00001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:607–31. doi:10.1007/s10926-005-8038-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Waddell G, Burton AK, Main CJ. Screening to identify people at risk of long-term incapacity for work. London: The Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Marois E, Durand MJ. Does participation in interdisciplinary work rehabilitation programme influence return to work obstacles and predictive factors? Dis Rehab. 2009 (in press).

  10. Linton SJ. A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine. 2000;25:1148–56. doi:10.1097/00007632-200005010-00017.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Innes E, Straker L. Reliability of work-related assessments. Work (Reading, Mass.). 1999;13:107–24.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pransky GS, Dempsey PG. Practical aspects of functional capacity evaluations. J Occup Rehabil. 2004;14:217–29. doi:10.1023/B:JOOR.0000022763.61656.b1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gross D, Battie M. Functional capacity evaluation performance does not predict sustained return to work in claimants with chronic back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;5:285–94. doi:10.1007/s10926-005-5937-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith SL, Cunningham S, Weinberg R. The predictive validity of the functional capacities evaluation. Am J Occup Ther. 1986;40:564–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Waddell G, Burton AK. Concepts of rehabilitation for the management of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheum. 2005;19:655–70. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coutarel F, Daniellou F, Dugué B. Interroger l’organisation du travail au regard des marges de manoeuvre en conception et en fonctionnement: la rotation est-elle une solution aux TMS? PISTES. 2003;5 http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v5n2/articles/v5n2a2.htm.

  17. Douillet P, Schweitzer JM. TMS, stress: gagner des marges de manoeuvre. BTS Newsl. 2002 Septembre: 64–6.

  18. Vézina N, Stock S, St-Jacques Y, Boucher M, Lemaire J, Trudel C, et al. Problèmes musculo-squelettiques et organisation modulaire du travail dans une usine de fabrication de bottes ou “Travailler en groupe, c’est de l’ouvrage”. Montréal, Québec: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travail (IRSST). Report No R-199; 1998.

  19. Vézina N, editor. Ergonomic practice and musculoskeletal disorders: openness to interdisciplinarity. SELF-ACE Conference 2001: ergonomics for changing work. Montréal; 2001.

  20. Johansson G, Lundberg O, Lundberg I. Return to work and adjustment latitude among employees on long-term sickness absence. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16:185–95. doi:10.1007/s10926-006-9020-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Katz JN, Amick BC, Keller R, Fossel AH, Ossman J, Soucie V, et al. Determinants of work absence following surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome. Am J Ind Med. 2005;47:120–30. doi:10.1002/ajim.20127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gimeno D, Amick BC, Habeck RV, Ossmann J, Katz JN. The role of job strain on return to work after carpal tunnel surgery. Occup Environ Med. 2005;62:778–85. doi:10.1136/oem.2004.016931.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Durand MJ, Vézina N, Baril R, Loisel P, Richard MC, Ngomo S. La marge de manœuvre de travailleurs pendant et après un programme de retour progressif au travail: définition et relation(s) avec le retour à l’emploi. Montréal, QC: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). Report No R-566; 2008.

  24. Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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 (Reading, Mass.). 2003;21:233–42.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gauthier B. Recherche sociale. De la problématique à la collecte des données. 4th ed. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  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;22:2911–8. doi:10.1097/00007632-199712150-00014.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Costa-Black K, Durand MJ, Imbeau D, Baril R, Loisel P. Interdisciplinary team discussion on work environment issues related to low back disability: a multiple case study. Work (Reading, Mass.). 2007;28:249–65.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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, QC: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). Report No R-393; 2004.

  30. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Analyse des données qualitatives. 2nd ed. Bruxelles: De Boech University; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Landry R. L’analyse de contenu. In: Gauthier B, editor. Recherche sociale: de la problématique à la collecte des données. Québec: PUQ; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Guérin F, Laville A, Daniellou F, Duraffourg J, Kerguelen A. Comprendre le travail pour le transformer. La pratique de l’ergonomie. 3rd ed. France: Éditions ANACT; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Saint-Arnaud L, Saint-Jean M, Rhéaume J. De la désinsertion à la réinsertion professionnelle à la suite d’un arrêt de travail pour un problème de santé mentale. Sante Ment Que. 2003;XXVIII:193–211.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Baril R, Durand MJ, Coutu MF, Côté D, Cadieux G, Rouleau A, et al. The impact of health, illness, pain and recovery-strategy representations on the work rehabilitation process. Montréal, QC: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). Report No R-592; 2008.

  35. Durand MJ, Loisel P, Hong QN, Charpentier N. Helping clinicians in work disability prevention: the work disability diagnosis interview. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12:191–204. doi:10.1023/A:1016846712499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the clinicians, workers, and investigators involved, as well as the two agencies that funded this study, specifically, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST). At the time of this study, the first author (MJD) was supported by a new investigator award from the CIHR.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’action en prévention de l’incapacité au travail (CAPRIT), 1111 St-Charles Street West, Suite 101, Longueuil, QC, J4K 5G4, Canada

    M. J. Durand, P. Loisel, M. C. Richard & S. Ngomo

  2. Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montreal, QC, Canada

    N. Vézina

  3. Institut de recherche en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), Montreal, QC, Canada

    R. Baril

Authors
  1. M. J. Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Vézina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Baril
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Loisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. C. Richard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Ngomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. J. Durand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Durand, M.J., Vézina, N., Baril, R. et al. Margin of Manoeuvre Indicators in the Workplace During the Rehabilitation Process: A Qualitative Analysis. J Occup Rehabil 19, 194–202 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9173-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9173-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation