“Apping Up”: Prospects for Information Technology Innovation in Return to Work Communication
Purpose During return to work (RTW), communication between health care providers and employers largely takes place through standardize paper-based forms. Information technology (IT) platforms may provide advantages in enabling information exchange and decision-making through sharing of guidelines and resources. We investigated stakeholder perspectives on the prospect of IT use for RTW communication in Ontario, Canada. Methods Consistent with the exploratory nature of the questions, qualitative methods were used. Primary data were interviews with health care providers (HCPs), employers, and workers with experience in RTW. The first portion of initial interviews elicited general perspectives and experiences related to RTW communication. Participants were then exposed to a prototype IT communication platform and elicited their feedback. Follow-up interviews with HCP’s and EMP’s were used to allow further reflection and clarification of data. We used progressive, thematic coding to analyze data. Results 12 HCPs, 7 employers, and 5 workers participated in the study. Five inter-related themes were obtained. Participants expressed no absolute objection to the use of IT for RTW communication but varying degrees of support. Participants revealed how media change depended on a prospective IT innovation’s perceived usefulness, fit with current practices, capacity to gain buy-in from other stakeholders, and ability to demonstrate positive performance in actual practice. Conclusions Findings suggest that a transition to an IT-mediated tool for RTW communication is supported in principle; however, major caveats exist in relation to perceived value and fit with stakeholder practice. System support and stakeholder cooperation are likely necessary to adopt the change, yet IT-mediated communication has yet to demonstrate value. To avoid circularity, proof of principal needs to be established through an implementation trial of such technology.
KeywordsSickness absence Return to work Disability management Rehabilitation Communication
We would like to acknowledge our participants for the generous gift of their time and experiences, the RTW Ex app developers for allowing us to use their product as a means to this research, Deborah Kennett for her advice on the research and Keeley Moloney and Amy Sayles for their assistance with data management.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Loisel P, Anema JR, Feuerstein M, Pransky G, MacEachen E., Costa-Black KM. Preface. In: Loisel P, Anema J, editors. Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. New York: Springer; 2014. p. ix–ixiii.Google Scholar
- 3.Franche R, 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(4):607–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8038-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Soklaridis S, Tang G, Cartmill C, Cassidy JD, Andersen J. “Can you go back to work?” Family physicians’ experiences with assessing patients’ functional ability to return to work. Can Family Physician. 2011;57(2):202–209.Google Scholar
- 13.Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006.Google Scholar
- 18.Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22(2):63–75.Google Scholar
- 22.Gagnon M, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, Car J, Pagliari C, Pluye P, Frémont P, Gagnon J, Tremblay N, Légaré F. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J Med Syst. 2012;36(1):241–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Klein KJ, Sorra JS. The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manag Rev. 1996;21(4):1055–1080.Google Scholar
- 32.Baril R, Clarke J, Friesen M, Stock S, Cole D., The Work-Ready group. Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: a qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(11):2101–2114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00131-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.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. 1998;158(12):1625–1631.Google Scholar
- 34.Guzman J, Frank J, Stock S, Yassi A, Loisel P. Stakeholder views of return to work after occupational injury. In: Sullivan T, Frank J, editors. Preventing and managing disabling injury at work. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2003. p. 87–100.Google Scholar
- 37.Callen J, Paoloni R, Li J, Stewart M, Gibson K, Georgiou A, Braithwaite J, Westbrook J. Perceptions of the effect of information and communication technology on the quality of care delivered in emergency departments: a cross-site qualitative study. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;61(2):131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.08.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Fichman RG. Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: emerging concepts and methods. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2004;5(8):314–355.Google Scholar