Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 311–321 | Cite as

Exploring Workplace Actors Experiences of the Social Organization of Return-to-Work

  • Åsa Tjulin
  • Ellen MacEachen
  • Kerstin Ekberg
Article

Abstract

Introduction There is a limited body of research on how the actual social exchange among workplace actors influences the practice of return-to-work. The objective of this study was to explore how workplace actors experience social relations at the workplace and how organizational dynamics in workplace-based return-to-work extends before and beyond the initial return of the sick listed worker to the workplace. Method An exploratory qualitative method approach was used, consisting of individual open-ended interviews with 33 workplace actors at seven worksites that had re-entering workers. The workplace actors represented in these interviews include: re-entering workers, supervisors, co-workers, and human resource managers. Results The analysis identified three distinct phases in the return to work process: while the worker is off work, when the worker returns back to work, and once back at work during the phase of sustainability of work ability. The two prominent themes that emerged across these phases include the theme of invisibility in relation to return-to-work effort and uncertainty, particularly, about how and when to enact return-to-work. Conclusion The findings strengthen the notion that workplace-based return-to-work interventions need to take social relations amongst workplace actors into account. They also highlight the importance and relevance of the varied roles of different workplace actors during two relatively unseen or grey areas, of return-to-work: the pre-return and the post-return sustainability phase. Attention to the invisibility of return-to-work efforts of some actors and uncertainty about how and when to enact return-to-work between workplace actors can promote successful and sustainable work ability for the re-entering worker.

Keywords

Social relations Social organization Workplace-based return-to-work Qualitative 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grant(s) FRN: 53909″, Work Disability Prevention Strategic Training Program. HELIX Vinn Excellence Centre, Linköping University, Sweden. The Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Canada.

References

  1. 1.
    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(4):607–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(5):339–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacEachen E, Ferrier S, Kosny A, Chambers L. A deliberation on ‘hurt versus harm’ logic in early-return-to-work policy. Policy Prac Health Saf. 2007;5(2):75–96.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche RL, Irvin E. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(4):257–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young AE, Roessler RT, Wasiak R, McPherson KM, van Poppel MN, Anema JR. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):557–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baril R, Clarke J, Friesen M, Stock S, Cole D. Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: a qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(11):2101–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eakin JM, MacEachen E, Clarke J. Playing it smart’ with return-to-work: small workplace experience under Ontario’s policy of self-reliance and early return. Policy Prac Health Saf. 2003;1(2):19–42.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsson A, Gard G. How can the rehabilitation planning process at the workplace be improved? A qualitative study from employers’ perspective. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(3):169–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bellaby P. What is genuine sickness? The relation between work-discipline and the sick role in a pottery factory. Sociol Health Illn. 1990;12(1):47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gates L. Workplace accommodation as a social process. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10(1):85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eakin JM, MacEachen E. Health and social relations of work: a study of health-related experiences of employees in small workplaces. Sociol Health Illn. 1998;20(6):896–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wasiak R, Verma S, Pransky G, Webster B. Risk factors for recurrent episodes of care and work disability: case of low back pain. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(1):68–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holmgren K, Dahlin Ivanoff S. Women on sickness absence—views of possibilities and obstacles for returning to work. A focus group study. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(4):213–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts-Yates C. The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: the need for new operational frameworks. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(16):898–907.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holmgren K, Ivanoff SD. Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(1):93–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shaw WS, Robertson MM, Pransky G, McLellan RK. Employee perspectives on the role of supervisors to prevent workplace disability after injuries. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(3):129–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, van Tulder M, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):507–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strauss S, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. 2nd ed. London: SAGE; 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. London: SAGE; 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    1962:381 A. Lagen om allmänn försäkring. Stockholm: Regeringskansliet; 1962.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hogan B, Carrasco JA, Wellman B. Visualizing personal networks: working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods. 2007;19(2):116–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grant D, editor. The SAGE handbook of organizational discourse. London: SAGE; 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clegg S. The bounds of rationality: power/history/imagination. Crit Perspect Account. 2006;17:847–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tjulin Å, Edvardsson Stiwne E, Ekberg K. Experience of the implementation of a multi-stakeholder return-to-work programme. J Occup Rehabil. 2009. doi: 10.1007/s10926-009-9195-y.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J. Return-to-work: the importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work. 2001;17(1):11–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schultz IZ, Stowell AW, Feuerstein M, Gatchel RJ. Models of return to work for musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(2):327–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Linton SJ, Gross D, Schultz IZ, Main C, Cote P, Pransky G, et al. Prognosis and the identification of workers risking disability: research issues and directions for future research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):459–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walters V, Haines T. Workers’ use and knowledge of the ‘internal responsibility system’: limits to participation in occupational health and safety. Can Public Policy. 1988;14(4):411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Åsa Tjulin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ellen MacEachen
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kerstin Ekberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical and Health Sciences, National Centre for Work and RehabilitationLinkoping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.HELIX Vinn Excellence CentreLinkoping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.Institute for Work & HealthTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations