Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Expectations for Return to Work After Workplace Injuries: The Relationship Between Estimated Time to Return to Work and Estimate Accuracy

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

Abstract

Purpose Worker’s expectations for return to working have been found to relate to return-to-work (RTW) outcomes; however, it is unclear if this varies depending upon the expected time to RTW. To advance the understanding of the relationship between expectations and RTW, we set out to answer the following research questions: Are shorter estimated times to RTW more accurate than estimates that are longer of duration? In addition, we sought to determine if there was a point in time that coincides with RTW estimates no longer being reliably related to time to RTW. Methods We utilized workers’ compensation data from a large, United States-based insurance company. Injured workers’ (N = 15,221) expectations for returning to work were compared with the termination of their total temporary indemnity payments. A linear regression model was used to determine if shorter lengths of expected time to RTW were more accurate. Quantile regression modelling was used to determine if there was point at which the expected time to RTW no longer reliably relates to the actual time to RTW. Results Findings indicated a positive relationship such that as the number of expected days to RTW increased, the number of days of difference (estimate error) between the actual time to RTW and the expected time to RTW also increased (β = 0.34, P < .001). The results of the quantile regression modelling indicated that for all quantiles estimated, with the exception of the quantile for estimates of 360 days, the relationship between the actual time to RTW and the expected time to RTW were statistically significant (P < .05). However, for RTW estimates of more than 14 days the relationship began decreasing in strength. Conclusion Results indicate that injured workers’ expectations for RTW can be used for RTW forecasting purposes. However, it is the case that RTW events in the near future can be forecasted with higher accuracy than those that are more distant, and that in general, injured workers will underestimate how long it will take them to RTW.

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. Auer CJ, Glombiewski JA, Doering BK, Winkler A, Laferton JA, Broadbent E, et al. Patients’ expectations predict surgery outcomes: a meta-analysis. Int J Behav Med. 2016;23(1):49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cormier S, Lavigne GL, Choinière M, Rainville P. Expectations predict chronic pain treatment outcomes. Pain. 2016;157(2):329–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. MÆland JG, Havik OE. Psychological predictors for return to work after a myocardial infarction. J Psychosom Res. 1987;31(4):471–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mondloch MV, Cole DC, Frank JW. Does how you do depend on how you think you’ll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients’ recovery expectations and health outcomes. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;165(2):174–179.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hallegraeff JM, Krijnen WP, van der Schans CP, de Greef MH. Expectations about recovery from acute non-specific low back pain predict absence from usual work due to chronic low back pain: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2012;58(3):165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF, O’Halloran P. Systematic review of the ability of recovery expectations to predict outcomes in non-chronic non-specific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(1):25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Young AE, Besen E, Choi Y. The importance, measurement and practical implications of worker’s expectations for return to work. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(20):1808–1816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Opsahl J, Eriksen HR, Tveito TH. Do expectancies of return to work and job satisfaction predict actual return to work in workers with long lasting LBP? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1314-2.

  9. Young AE, Besen E, Willetts J. The relationship between work-disability duration and claimant’s expected time to return to work as recorded by workers’ compensation claims managers. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;27(2):284–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Reid RD, Sanders NR. Operations management: an integrated approach. 4th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hill AV. The encyclopedia of operations management: a field manual and glossary of operations management terms and concepts. Upper Saddle River: FT Press; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Armstrong JS. Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. New York: Springer; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Willmott CJ, Matsuura K. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim Res. 2005;30(1):79–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. SIC manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ferraz MB, Quaresma MR, Aquino LR, Atra E, Tugwell P, Goldsmith CH. Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1990;17(8):1022–1024.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson TD, Gilbert DT. Affective forecasting knowing what to want. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(3):131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carstens JK, Shaw WS, Boersma K, Reme SE, Pransky G, Linton SJ. When the wind goes out of the sail - declining recovery expectations in the first weeks of back pain. Eur J Pain. 2014;18(2):269–278.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boersma K, Linton SJ. Expectancy, fear and pain in the prediction of chronic pain and disability: a prospective analysis. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(6):551–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Iles RA, Taylor NF, Davidson M, O’Halloran PD. Patient recovery expectations in non-chronic non-specific low back pain: a qualitative investigation. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(9):781–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Løvvik C, Øverland S, Hysing M, Broadbent E, Reme SE. Association between illness perceptions and return-to-work expectations in workers with common mental health symptoms. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(1):15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shaw WS, Reme SE, Linton SJ, Huang YH, Pransky G. 3rd place, PREMUS best paper competition: development of the return-to-work self-efficacy (RTWSE-19) questionnaire–psychometric properties and predictive validity. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011;37(2):109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Young Normandeau & Co. and Center for Disability Research, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, 01748, USA

    Amanda Ellen Young

  2. Center for Disability Research, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, 01748, USA

    Elyssa Besen

  3. Center for Injury Epidemiology, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, MA, 01748, USA

    Joanna Willetts

Authors
  1. Amanda Ellen Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elyssa Besen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna Willetts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Ellen Young.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

The requirement for informed consent was waived by the reviewing IRB (NEIRB—http://www.neirb.com/). The study involved an examination of data drawn from an insurer’s administrative database. The risk to study subjects was no more than minimal and the research could not effectively and practicably be carried out without the waiver.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Young, A.E., Besen, E. & Willetts, J. Expectations for Return to Work After Workplace Injuries: The Relationship Between Estimated Time to Return to Work and Estimate Accuracy. J Occup Rehabil 28, 711–720 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9754-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9754-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation