Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Cartoons to Transfer Knowledge Concerning the Principles of Work Disability Prevention Among Stakeholders

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

Abstract

Purpose This study assesses how well two cartoons transfer knowledge of principles of work disability prevention among stakeholders, according to their level of experience. We also document stakeholders’ perceptions of the usefulness of the cartoons. Method We performed a descriptive study. Two groups of stakeholders were recruited: (1) experienced (working for more than 2 years in work disability), (2) non-experienced (in training). A self-administered questionnaire with open-ended questions documented stakeholders’ understanding of each cartoon box and their perception of the possible usefulness of the cartoons. We transformed qualitative responses into quantitative responses for descriptive purposes. We performed independent t tests to compare the groups’ level of understanding, and content analysis for the perception of usefulness. Results Overall, 149 stakeholders (50 experienced and 99 non-experienced) participated and identified 79.4 and 61.4 % of all principles presented in each of the two cartoons respectively. Experienced stakeholders identified more principles compared to non-experienced stakeholders (p = 0.007). Both cartoons were perceived to be useful for knowledge transfer. Conclusions Principles were generally well identified in the cartoons by all participants. Cartoons can be used as an effective tool among stakeholders to achieve a common understanding in order to coordinate their actions.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Green MJ, Myers KR. Graphic medicine: use of comics in medical education and patient care. BMJ. 2010;340(7746):574–7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Delp C, Jones J. Communicating information to patients: the use of cartoon illustrations to improve comprehension of instructions. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3(3):264–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pauwels L. Visual sociology reframed: an analytical synthesis of visual methods in cultural and social research. Sociol Methods Res. 2010;38:545–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dines-Levy G, Smith G. Representations of women and men in playboy sex cartoons. In: Powell CaP, G, editor. Humour in society: resistance and control. Basingstoke, England Macmillan Press Ltd; 1988. p. 234–259.

  5. Prosser J. The visual representation of school culture. Commun Cogn. 1998;31(2/3):243–64.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Williams B, Cameron L. Images in health care: potential and problems. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(4):251–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mayer RE, Sims VK. Forwhom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol. 1994;86:389–401.

  8. Carney R, Levin J. Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Edu Psychol Rev. 2002;14(1):5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Houts PS, Witmer JT, Egeth HE, Loscalzo MJ, Zabora JR. Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions II. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;43:231–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Michielutte R, Bahnson J, Dignan MB, Schroeder EM. The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure. J Cancer Educ. 1992;7(3):251–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dadich A. Transferring knowledge to the providers and users of health and mental health services. Int J Learn Change. 2010;4(2):119–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64(1–3):393–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kennedy A, Rogers A, Blickem C, Daker-White G, Bowen R. Developing cartoons for long-term condition self-management information. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Frank JW, Sinclair S, Hoggjohnson S, Shannon H, Bombardier C, Beaton D, et al. 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(12):1625–31.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Loisel P, Anema JR. The work disability paradigm and its public health implications. In: Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 59–67.

  16. Young AE, Wasiak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR. Poppel MNMv. Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):543–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Feuerstein M, Hartzell M, Rogers HL, Marcus SC. Evidence-based practice for acute low back pain in primary care: patient outcomes and cost of care. Pain. 2006;124(1–2):140–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Medical Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II46–54.

  19. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Getting research findings into practice—closing the gap between research and practice—an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998;317(7156):465–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Saillour-Glenisson F, Michel P. Individual and collective facilitators of and barriers to the use of clinical practice guidelines by physicians: a literature review. Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique [Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health]. 2003;51:65–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bekkering GE, Engers AJ, Wensing M, Hendriks HJ, van Tulder MW, Oostendorp RA, et al. Development of an implementation strategy for physiotherapy guidelines on low back pain. Aust J Physiother. 2003;49(3):208–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Olade RA. Attitudes and factors affecting research utilization. Nurs Forum. 2003;38(4):5–15.

  23. Grol R. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ. 1997;315(7105):418–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Durand MJ, Loisel P, Charpentier N, Labelle J, Hong QN. Le programme de Retour Thérapeutique au Travail (RTT): un programme de réadaptation au travail basé sur les données probantes. Longueuil: Centre de recherche clinique en réadaptation au travail PRÉVICAP de l’Hôpital Charles LeMoyne; 2004 [Therapeutics Return to Work Program, a return to work program based on evidence. Longueuil: Clinical Research Centre in rehabilitation work PRÉVICAP Charles LeMoyne Hospital; 2004].

  25. Dionne C, Bourbonnais R, Fremont P, Rossignol M, Stock S, Laroque I. A clinical return-to-work rule for patient with back pain. Can Med Assoc J. 2005;172(12):1559–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Laisné F, Lecomte C, Corbière M. Biopsychosocial predictors of prognosis in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(5):355–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(2):69–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Deegan LJ, Rudolph L, Brand RJ. Psychosocial job factors and return-to-work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40(4):374–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Truchon M, Fillion L. Biopsychosocial determinants of chronic disability and low-back pain: a review. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10(2):117–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wells R, Moore A, Potvin J, Norman R. Assessment of risk factors for development of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (RSI). Appl Ergon. 1994;25(3):157–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Butterfield PG, Spencer PS, Redmond N, Feldstein A, Perrin N. Low back pain: predictors of absenteeism, residual symptoms, functional impairment, and medical costs in Oregon Workers’ compensation recipients. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:559–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lippell K. Compensation for musculoskeletal disorders in Quebec: systemic discrimination against women workers? Int J Health Serv. 2003;33(2):253–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 Outcomes. 2001;9(7):351–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A. GPOWER: a general G power analysis program. Behav Res Methods, Instrum Comput. 1996;28:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2010.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants of the study as well as Mrs. Quan Nha Hong, Mr. Pierre Durand (professional cartoonist), Mr. Pedro D’Orleans-Juste, and the team at the Centre universitaire d’enrichissement de la formation à la recherche at the Université de Sherbrooke for their precious help in the writing of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hopital Charles-LeMoyne Research Center and School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-lemoyne, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-Elise Labrecque, Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand & Jean-Baptiste Fassier

  2. Hospices Civils de Lyon/UMRESTTE, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France

    Jean-Baptiste Fassier

  3. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Patrick Loisel

Authors
  1. Marie-Elise Labrecque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-France Coutu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie-José Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Baptiste Fassier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Loisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-France Coutu.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was supported by the work disability prevention research team financed by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and by the Chair on Work Disability Prevention, J. Armand Bombardier Foundation and Pratt & Whitney Canada.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Labrecque, ME., Coutu, MF., Durand, MJ. et al. Using Cartoons to Transfer Knowledge Concerning the Principles of Work Disability Prevention Among Stakeholders. J Occup Rehabil 26, 141–149 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-015-9595-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-015-9595-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation