Skip to main content

Gender Differences in Personal and Work-Related Determinants of Return-to-Work Following Long-Term Disability: A 5-Year Cohort Study

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation volume 22, pages 522–531 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective To assess the differential effect of personal and work-related psychosocial, physical and organizational determinants by gender on time to return-to-work (RTW) following long-term disability. Methods Data come from a larger study conducted in the province of Quebec, Canada. A cohort of 455 adults on long-term disability due to work-related musculoskeletal disorders at the back/neck/upper limb was followed for 5 years through structured interviews and administrative databases. Left-truncated Cox regression modeling stratified by gender was used to assess time to a first partial or full RTW of at least 3 days. Results Survival curves of time to RTW were similar between men and women on long-term disability (log-rank test p value = 0.920) but many personal and occupational factors influencing RTW differed by gender. Women’s risk factors included older age (HR = 0.734—in 10 years unit), poor to very poor perceived economic status (HR = 0.625), working ≥40 h/week and having dependents (HR = 0.508) and awareness of workplace-based occupational health and safety program (HR = 0.598); higher gross annual income (in $10,000 s) was a facilitator (HR = 1.225). In men, being over 55 years old (HR = 0.458), poor perceived economic status (HR = 0.653), working ≥40 h/week and high perceived physical workload (HR = 0.720) and higher job insecurity (HR = 0.825) negatively influenced time to RTW. For both men and women, probabilities of not returning to work varied widely according to workers’ specific profile of personal and occupational factors (high or low risk profile). Conclusion Results confirm the importance of gender-sensitive strategies to investigate RTW determinants from a gender perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Brooks PM. The burden of musculoskeletal disease: a global perspective. Clin Rheumatol. 2006;25(6):778–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Commission de la Santé et Sécurité du Travail. Statistics on inflammations of the musculoskeletal system: 2004–2007 [Statistiques sur les lésions en “ite” du système musculo-squelettique: 2004–2007]. Quebec, CSST; 2008.

  3. Commission de la Santé et Sécurité du Travail. Statistics on vertebral disorders: 2004–2007 [Statistiques sur les affections vertébrales: 2004–2007]. Quebec, CSST; 2008.

  4. Henderson M, Glozier N, Elliott KH. Long term sickness absence. BMJ. 2005;330(7495):802–3.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Crook J, Moldofsky H. The probability of recovery and return to work from work disability as a function of time. Qual Life Res. 1994;3(Suppl 1):97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gjesdal S, Bratberg E, Maeland J. Gender differences in disability after sickness absence with musculoskeletal disorders: five-year prospective study of 37,942 women and 26,307 men. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12(1):37.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Coutu MF, Durand MJ, Loisel P, Goulet C, Gauthier N. Level of distress among workers undergoing work rehabilitation for musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(2):289–303.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mäntyselkä PT, Kumpusalo EA, Ahonen RS, Takala JK. Direct and indirect costs of managing patients with musculoskeletal pain–challenge for health care. Eur J Pain. 2002;6(2):141–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hirsh A, Waxenberg L, Atchison J, Gremillion H, Robinson M. Evidence for sex differences in the relationships of pain, mood, and disability. J Pain. 2006;7(8):592–601.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gjesdal S, Bratberg E. The role of gender in long-term sickness absence and transition to permanent disability benefits. Results from a multiregister based, prospective study in Norway 1990–1995. Eur J Public Health. 2002;12(3):180–6.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Messing K, Stock S, Tissot F. Should studies of risk factors for MSDs be stratified by gender? Lessons from analyses of musculoskeletal disorders among respondents to the 1998 Québec health survey. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35(2):96–112.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harrold L, Savageau J, Pransky G, Benjamin K. Understanding the role of sex differences in work injuries: implications for primary care practice. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(1):36–43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Messing K, Mager Stellman J. Sex, gender and women’s occupational health: the importance of considering mechanism. Environ Res. 2006;101(2):149–62.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Leijon M, Hensing G, Alexanderson K. Sickness absence due to musculoskeletal diagnoses: association with occupational gender segregation. Scand J Public Health. 2004;32(2):94–101.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feuerstein M, Berkowitz S, Peck C Jr. Musculoskeletal-related disability in US army personnel: prevalence, gender, and military occupational specialties. J Occup Environ Med. 1997;39(1):68–78.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. De Rijk A, Janssen N, Alexanderson K, Nijhuis F. Gender differences in return to work patterns among sickness absentees and their associations with health: a prospective cohort study in The Netherlands. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31(4):327–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Alexanderson K, Borg K, Hensing G. Sickness absence with low-back, shoulder, or neck diagnoses: an 11-year follow-up regarding gender differences in sickness absence and disability pension. Work. 2005;25(2):115–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaptein S, Gignac M, Badley E. Differences in the workforce experiences of women and men with arthritis disability: a population health perspective. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(5):605–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ahlgren C, Hammarstrom A. Back to work? Gendered experiences of rehabilitation. Scand J Public Health. 2000;28(2):88–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. De Rijk A, Nijhuis F, Alexanderson K. Gender differences in work modifications and changed job characteristics during the return-to-work process: a prospective cohort study. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(2):185–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hooftman W, van der Beek A, Bongers P, van Mechelen W. Is there a gender difference in the effect of work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors on musculoskeletal symptoms and related sickness absence? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35(2):85–95.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC, Rahim-Williams B, Riley JL III. Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. J Pain. 2009;10(5):447–85.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bekker M. Investigating gender within health research is more than sex disaggregation of data: a multi-facet gender and health model. Psychol Health Med. 2003;8(2):231–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Punnett L, Herbert R. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: is there a gender differential, and if so, what does it mean. Women Health. 2000;38(6):474–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Artazcoz L, Borrell C, Cortàs I, Escribà-Agüir V, Cascant L. Occupational epidemiology and work related inequalities in health: a gender perspective for two complementary approaches to work and health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(Suppl 2):39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hammarström A. A tool for developing gender research in medicine: examples from the medical literature on work life. Gend Med. 2007;4 suppl B:123–32.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rivard M, Lederer V, Rossignol M, Contandriopoulos AP, Sainte-Marie G. Les lombalgies et lésions musculo-squelettiques chroniques, un coût pour la santé: résultats d’une étude coûts-avantages d’une intervention de réadaptation au travail. Rev Rhum. 2011;78(Suppl 2):87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Loisel P, Durand P, Abenhaim L, Gosselin L, Simard R, Turcotte J, et al. Management of occupational back pain: the Sherbrooke model. Results of a pilot and feasibility study. J Occup Environ Med. 1994 Sep;51(9):597–602.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Steenstra IA, Anema JR, Bongers PM, De Vet HCW, Knol DL, Van Mechelen W. The effectiveness of graded activity for low back pain in occupational healthcare. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;63(11):718–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Krause N, Frank JW, Dasinger LK, Sullivan TJ, Sinclair SJ. Determinants of duration of disability and return-to-work after work-related injury and illness: challenges for future research. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40(4):464–84.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. de Vet H, Heymans M, Dunn K, Pope D, van der Beek A, Macfarlane G, et al. Episodes of low back pain: a proposal for uniform definitions to be used in research. Spine. 2002;27(21):2409–16.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fuller S. Investigating longitudinal dimensions of precarious employment: conceptual and practical issues. In: Vosko LF, MacDonald M, Campbell I, editors. Gender and the contours of precarious employment. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 226–31.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Silverstein B, Fan Z, Smith C, Bao S, Howard N, Spielholz P, et al. Gender adjustment or stratification in discerning upper extremity musculoskeletal disorder risk? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35(2):113–26.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Klein JP, Moeschberger ML. Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stata Statistical Software [computer program]. Version 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp; 2010.

  37. Messing K, Punnett L, Bond M, Alexanderson K, Pyle J, Zahm S, et al. Be the fairest of them all: challenges and recommendations for the treatment of gender in occupational health research. Am J Ind Med. 2003;43(6):618–29.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Durand MJ, Loisel P, Hong QN, Charpentier N. Helping clinicians in work disability prevention: the work disability diagnosis interview. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(3):191–204.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the Robert-Sauvé Occupational Health and Safety Research Institute (IRSST—#0099-2820). V.L. was supported by a Banting and Best Doctoral Research Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Doctoral Scholarship from the Robert-Sauvé Occupational Health and Safety Research Institute.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Montreal, CP 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Valérie Lederer, Michèle Rivard & Samia Djemaa Mechakra-Tahiri

  2. Public Health Research Institute, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Valérie Lederer, Michèle Rivard & Samia Djemaa Mechakra-Tahiri

Authors
  1. Valérie Lederer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michèle Rivard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samia Djemaa Mechakra-Tahiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valérie Lederer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lederer, V., Rivard, M. & Mechakra-Tahiri, S.D. Gender Differences in Personal and Work-Related Determinants of Return-to-Work Following Long-Term Disability: A 5-Year Cohort Study. J Occup Rehabil 22, 522–531 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9366-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-012-9366-0

Keywords

  • Sex
  • Gender
  • Return-to-work
  • Prolonged
  • Chronic
  • Sickness absence