Interactions Between Injured Workers and Insurers in Workers’ Compensation Systems: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research Literature

Abstract

Introduction Work-related injury is a major public health problem and a worker’s recovery can be shaped by their interactions with employers, healthcare providers and the workers’ compensation system. Most research on the effects of compensation has concentrated on examining outcomes rather than considering the compensation process itself. There has been little attention paid to the interactions between stakeholders and only recently has the client’s view been considered as worthy of investigation. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize findings from peer reviewed qualitative studies that investigated injured workers interactions with insurers in workers’ compensation systems. Method A search of six electronic library databases revealed 1,006 articles. After screening for relevance, 18 articles were read in full and a search of those bibliographies revealed a further nine relevant articles. Quality assessment of the 27 studies resulted in a final 13 articles of medium and high quality being retained for data extraction. Results Included studies focused mainly on experiences of injured workers, many of whom had long term claims. Findings were synthesized using a meta-ethnographic approach. Six themes were identified which characterised the interactions between insurers and injured workers. The majority of interactions were negative and resulted in considerable psychosocial consequences for injured workers. Positive interactions were less frequently reported and included respectful, understanding and supportive communication and efficient service from insurers. Conclusion Findings from this synthesis support the growing consensus that involvement in compensation systems contributes to poorer outcomes for claimants. Interactions between insurers and injured workers were interwoven in cyclical and pathogenic relationships, which influence the development of secondary injury in the form of psychosocial consequences instead of fostering recovery of injured workers. This review suggests that further research is required to investigate positive interactions and identify mechanisms to better support and prevent secondary psychosocial harm to injured workers.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The version used by MacEachen et al. [21] excluded one question that related specifically to evaluation research and similarly that question was not included in this review.

  2. 2.

    Reflexivity refers to the comments made by the authors of each article on how the context, selection of participants or data collection process affected the results obtained in their study.

References

  1. 1.

    Dembe AE. The social consequences of occupational injury and illnesses. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40:403–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Loisel P, Durand M, Baril R, Gervais J, Falardeau M. Interorganizational collaboration in occupational rehabilitation: perceptions of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):581–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, Cote P, Lemstra M, Berglund A, Nygren A. Effect of eliminating compensation for pain and suffering on the outcome of insurance claims for whiplash injury. New Engl J Med. 2000;342:1179–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Spearing N, Gyrd-Hansen D, Pobereskin L, Rowell D, Connelly L. Are people who claim compensation “cured by a verdict”? A longitudinal study of health outcomes after whiplash. J Law Med. 2012;20:82–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Turner J, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Sheppard L, Thomas M, Rae Wu W, Gluck J, Egan K, Stover B. Early predictors of chronic work disability associated with carpal tunnel syndrome: a longitudinal workers’ compensation cohort study. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50:489–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Weiler SW, Foeh KP, van Mark A, Touissant R, Sonntag N, Gaessler A, Schulze J, Kessel R. Outpatient rehabilitation of workers with musculoskeletal disorders using structured workplace description. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009;82:427–34.

  7. 7.

    Cole D, Mondloch M, Hogg-Johnson S, for the Early Claimant Cohort Prognostic Modelling Group. Institute for Work, Health. Listening to injured workers: how recovery expectations predict outcomes—a prospective study. Can Med Assoc. 2002;166(6):749–54.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Harris I, Murgatroyd D, Cameron I, Young J, Solomon M. The effect of compensation on health care utilisation in a trauma cohort. Med Journal Aust. 2009;190(11):619–22.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. The Institute for Work and Health (IWH) Workplace-Based RTW Intervention Literature Review Research Team. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:607–31.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gabbe BJ, Cameron PA, Williamson OD, Edwards ER, Graves SE, Richardson MD. The relationship between compensable status and long-term patient outcomes following orthopaedic trauma. Med J Aust. 2007;187(1):14–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Harris I, Mulford J, Solomon M, van Gelder JM, Young J. Association between compensation status and outcome after surgery: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;293(13):1644–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. London: Sage Publications; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Grant G, Studdert D. Poisoned chalice? A critical analysis of the evidence linking personal injury compensation processes with adverse health outcomes. Melb Uni Law Rev. 2009;33(3):865–85.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lippel K. Preserving workers’ dignity in workers’ compensation systems: an international perspective. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55(6):519–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Akkermans A. Reforming personal injury claims settlement: Paying more attention to emotional dimension promotes victim recovery. 2009; doi:10.2139/ssrn.1333214. Accessed 1 Oct 2012.

  16. 16.

    Sager L, James C. Injured workers perspectives of their rehabilitation process under the New South Wales workers compensation system. Aust Occup Ther J. 2005;52:127–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Calzoni T. The client perspective: the missing link in work injury and rehabilitation studies. J Occup Health Saf Aust NZ. 1997;13(1):47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bye R. When clients are dying: occupational therapists’ perspectives. Occup Ther J Res. 1998;18(1):3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    McKinnon A. Client values and satisfaction with Occupational Therapy. Scand J Occup Ther. 2000;7:99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Boynton T, Darragh A. Participatory ergonomics intervention in a sterile processing center; a case study. Work. 2008;31:95–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. London: Cabinet Office; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. California: Sage Publications; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Beardwood B, Kirsh B, Clark N. Victims twice over: perceptions and experiences of injured workers. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(1):30–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cacciacarro L, Kirsh B. Exploring the mental health needs of injured workers. Can J Occup Ther. 2006;73(3):178–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cromie J, Robertson V, Best M. Physical therapists who claimed workers’ compensation: a qualitative study. Phys Ther. 2003;83(12):1080–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hubertsson J, Petersson I, Arvidsson B, Thorstensson C. Sickness absence in musculoskeletal disorders—patients’ experiences of interactions with the Social Insurance Agency and health care. A qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2011; doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-107.

  28. 28.

    Jaye C, Fitzgerald R. The lived political economy of occupational overuse syndrome among New Zealand workers. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(7):1010–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Kosny A, MacEachen E, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The role of healthcare providers in long term and complicated workers’ compensation claims. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(4):582–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lippel K. Workers describe the effect of the workers’ compensation process on their health: a Quebec study. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2007;30(4):427–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S. Unexpected barriers in return to work: lessons learned from injured worker peer support groups. Work. 2007;29(2):155–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The “toxic dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):349–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Murray M. Fish harvesters with injuries accounts of their experiences with the workers’ compensation system. Work. 2007;28(1):47–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Reid J, Ewan C, Lowy E. Pilgrimage of pain: the illness experiences of women with repetition strain injury and the search for credibility. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(5):601–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Strunin L, Boden L. The workers’ compensation system: worker friend or foe? Am J Ind Med. 2004;45(4):338–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Miller D. Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):527–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Brown C, Bostick G, Lim J, Gross D. Perceived injustice in injured workers: analysis of public responses to an injured worker who took Workers’ Compensation Board employees hostage. Scand J Caring Sci. 2012;26(3):569–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Hadler N. If you have to prove you are ill, you can’t get well: the object lesson of fibromyalgia. Spine. 1996;21(20):2397–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Davis MC, Ibrahim J, Ranson D, Ozanne-Smith J, Routely V. Work-related musculoskeletal injury and suicide: opportunities for intervention and therapeutic jurisprudence. J Law Med. 2013;21(1):110–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Routely V, Ozanne-Smith J, Davis MC. Suicide following work-injury in Victoria, Australia. J Health Saf Med. 2012;23(3):293.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Smith M, Perlis M, Haythornthwaite J. Suicidal ideation in outpatients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. An exploratory study of the role of sleep onset insomnia and pain intensity. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(2):111–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Tang N, Crane C. Suicidality in chronic pain: a review of the prevalence, risk factors and psychological links. Psychol Med. 2006;36:575–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Wilson K, Kowal J, Henderson P, McWilliams L, Péloquin K. Chronic pain and the interpersonal theory of suicide. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2013;58(1):111–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Dawson S. Workers’ Compensation in Pennsylvania. J Health Soc Policy. 1995;6(1):87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lippel K. Therapeutic and anti-therapeutic consequences of workers’ compensation. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1999;22(5):521–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ison T. The therapeutic significance of compensation structures. Can Bar Rev. 1986;64:605–17.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Wilkinson W. Therapeutic jurisprudence and workers’ compensation. Ariz Atty. 1994;30:28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Shuman D. The psychology of compensation in tort law. U. Kans Law Rev. 1994;43:39–77.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Imershein A, Hill S, Reynolds A. The workers’ compensation system as a quality of life problem for workers’ compensation claimants. Adv Med Sociol. 1994;5:181–200.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Svensson T, Karlsson A, Alexanderson K, Nordqvist C. Shame-inducing encounters. Negative emotional aspects of sickness-absentees’ interactions with rehabilitation professionals. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(3):183–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Frank J, Sinclair S, Hogg-Johnson S, Shannon H, Bombardier C, Beaton D, Cole D. Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain—new evidence gives new hope—if we can just get all the players onside. Can Med Assoc J. 1998;158:1625–31.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Schaafsma F, De Wolf A, Kayaian A, Cameron I. Changing insurance company claims handling processes improves some outcomes for people injured in road traffic crashes BMC Public Health 2012; http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/36. Accessed 9 Dec 2012.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The project was funded by WorkSafe Victoria, the Transport Accident Commission and Monash University, Victoria, Australia. The authors wish to thank Dr. E MacEachen for the use of quality appraisal and data extraction proforma previously developed for a systematic review of qualitative literature on return to work.

Conflict of interest

The project No FS-M-11-029 was funded by WorkSafe Victoria and the Transport Accident Commission, (TAC) Victoria, Australia. ISCRR is a joint initiative of TAC, WorkSafe Victoria and Monash University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Kilgour.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 235 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

Quality Assessment Questions

The questions from the Quality Assessment Framework developed by Spencer [22] and modified by MacEachen [21] were reordered to fit the focus of the review. Each question was rated out of five using the suggested underlying quality guidelines. Questions 1 and 2 were regarded as important screening indicators. If reviewers did not score the first two questions at 2 or above, the assessment was not continued as it was evident that the article was not of sufficient relevance to be included in the review.

  1. 1.

    How has knowledge/understanding of interactions between key parties in workers’ compensation systems been extended by the research?

  2. 2.

    Scope for drawing wider inference about interactions between key parties in workers’ compensation systems—how well is this explained?

  3. 3.

    How well does the study address the original aims and purpose?

  4. 4.

    How credible are the findings?

  5. 5.

    How defensible is the research design?

  6. 6.

    How well defended is the sample design/target selection of cases?

  7. 7.

    Sample composition/case inclusion—how well is coverage described?

  8. 8.

    How well was the data collection carried out?

  9. 9.

    How adequately has the research process been documented?

  10. 10.

    How well was the approach to/formulation of the analysis conveyed?

  11. 11.

    Contexts of data sources—how well are they retained/portrayed?

  12. 12.

    How well has diversity of perspective and content been explored?

  13. 13.

    How well has detail, depth and richness of data been conveyed?

  14. 14.

    How clear are the links between data, interpretation and conclusions?

  15. 15.

    How clear and coherent is the reporting?

  16. 16.

    How clear are the assumptions/theoretical perspectives/values that shaped form and output of the study?

  17. 17.

    What evidence is there of attention to ethical issues?

The question excluded in this modified version was “How clear is the basis of evaluative appraisal?” which applies only to evaluation research.

Rating Calculation Guidelines

Each of the quality assessment questions were rated out of 5 and scores were then totalled to achieve the overall rating of the article. An overall score was calculated for the article and levels of quality were assigned as: Very Low (0–15); Low (16–30); Medium (31–55); High (56–70); and Very High (71–85). The questions included in each section, and the possible maximum scores for each section are listed below

Question Category Rated score Maximum score
1–4 Findings   20
5–7 Design and Sample   15
8–9 Data Collection   10
10–13 Analysis   20
14 Auditability   5
15 Reporting   5
16 Reflexivity and Neutrality   5
17 Ethics   5
  Total score   85

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kilgour, E., Kosny, A., McKenzie, D. et al. Interactions Between Injured Workers and Insurers in Workers’ Compensation Systems: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research Literature. J Occup Rehabil 25, 160–181 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9513-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Workers’ compensation
  • Injured worker
  • Insurer
  • Interactions
  • Psychosocial consequences
  • Qualitative
  • Systematic review