Factors Associated with Employer Support for Injured Workers During a Workers’ Compensation Claim

Abstract

Purpose The employer/worker relationship can be an important catalyst for—or obstacle to—successful return to work (RTW). An understanding of factors associated with an injured worker’s relationship with their employer, and employer involvement in RTW planning, is warranted. Methods Analysis of n = 8808 cross-sectional survey responses from injured workers in nine Australian workers’ compensation (WC) jurisdictions. Workers completed a telephone survey between 6 and 24 months post-WC claim acceptance. Factors associated with the worker’s perception of employer support were examined using ordinal regression. Factors associated with employer provision of RTW plans were examined using logistic regression. Results Factors associated with employer support included being aged over 50 years, not having a mental health condition, better self-rated health and less time between injury and claim. Factors associated with having a RTW plan included being female, not having a mental health condition and working for a self-insurer. Factors associated with having a written RTW plan included being female and being under 50 years. There was wide variation in the provision of RTW plans between WC jurisdictions. Conclusions There are strong associations between worker, claim and injury-related factors and the injured worker’s experience of employer support. Identification of workers at risk of receiving inadequate support during the RTW process may enable interventions to improve support and RTW outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Takala J, Hamalainen P, Saarela KL, Yun LY, Manickam K, Jin TW, et al. Global estimates of the burden of injury and illness at work in 2012. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11(5):326–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Waddell G, Burton K. Is work good for your health and well-being? London: TSO; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Durand MJ, Corbiere M, Coutu MF, Reinharz D, Albert V. A review of best work-absence management and return-to-work practices for workers with musculoskeletal or common mental disorders. Work. 2014;48(4):579–589.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    D’Amato A, Zijlstra F. Toward a climate for work resumption: the nonmedical determinants of return to work. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(1):67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):525–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):607–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Awang H, Tan LY, Mansor N, Tongkumchum P, Eso M. Factors related to successful return to work following multidisciplinary rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2017;49(6):520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jetha A, LaMontagne AD, Lilley R, Hogg-Johnson S, Sim M, Smith P. Workplace social system and sustained return-to-work: a study of supervisor and co-worker supportiveness and injury reaction. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(3):486–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Butler RJ, Johnson WG, Cote P. It pays to be nice: employer-worker relationships and the management of back pain claims. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(2):214–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Negrini A, Corbiere M, Lecomte T, Coutu MF, Nieuwenhuijsen K, St-Arnaud L, et al. How can supervisors contribute to the return to work of employees who have experienced depression? J. Occup. Rehabil. 2018;28(2):279–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bonneterre V, Perennou D, Trovatello V, Mignot N, Segal P, Balducci F, et al. Interest of workplace support for returning to work after a traumatic brain injury: a retrospective study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;56(9–10):652–662.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    State of Queensland. Guidelines for standard for rehabilitation. Brisbane: Office of Industrial Relations; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Safe Work Australia. Workers’ compensation legislation and psychological injury. Safe Work Australia: Canberra; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    NSW Government. Draft guidelines for workplace return to work programs. Gosford: State Insurance Regulatory Authority; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Safe Work Australia. Comparison of workers’ compensation arrangements in Australia and New Zealand. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lane TJ, Lilley R, Hogg-Johnson S, LaMontagne AD, Sim MR, Smith PM. A prospective cohort study of the impact of return-to-work coordinators in getting injured workers back on the job. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2018;28(2):298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Labour Force Australia. Canberra, Australia; 2018.

  18. 18.

    Lane T, Collie A, Hassani-Mahmooei B. What is the incidence of work-related conditions and their impact on time lost from work by state and territory, age, gender and injury type? Melbourne: Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Collie A. Australian workers’ compensation systems. Understanding the Australian Healthcare System. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Elsevier Health; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Social Research Centre. Return to Work Survey: 2016 Summary Research Report (Australia and New Zealand). Melbourne: Safe Work Australia; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Social Research Centre. Return to Work Survey: 2013/14 Summary Research Report (Australia and New Zealand). Melbourne: Safe Work Australia; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Social Research Centre. Return to Work Survey: 2012/13 Summary Research Report (Australia and New Zealand). Melbourne: Safe Work Australia; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Australian Safety and Compensation Council. Type of occurrence classification system (Revision 1). 3rd ed. Canberra: Australian Government; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gray SE, Collie A. The nature and burden of occupational injury among first responder occupations: a retrospective cohort study in Australian workers. Injury 2017;48(11):2470–2477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 15.1. College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Brijnath B, Mazza D, Singh N, Kosny A, Ruseckaite R, Collie A. Mental health claims management and return to work: qualitative insights from Melbourne, Australia. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(4):766–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pomaki G, Franche RL, Khushrushahi N, Murray E, Lampinen T, Mah P. Best practices for return-to-work/stay-at-work interventions for workers with mental health conditions. Vancouver: Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Cooney R, Mwila NK. Improving return to work (RTW) coordinator training. Melbourne: Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Smith JA, Braunack-Mayer A, Wittert G. What do we know about men’s help-seeking and health service use? Med J Aust. 2006;184(2):81–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication uses data supplied by Safe Work Australia and has been compiled in collaboration with state, territory and Commonwealth workers’ compensation regulators. The views expressed are the authors and are not necessarily the views of Safe Work Australia or the state, territory and Commonwealth workers’ compensation regulators. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Ms Dianne Beck for assistance with data management, and Mr Shane Compton from the Social Research Centre for assistance with data provision and interpretation.

Funding

This project was funded by Safe Work Australia and WorkSafe Victoria through a grant to AC. Safe Work Australia provided the data for the study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luke R. Sheehan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study received ethics approval from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC) on 8 October 2014 (CF14/2995-2014001663).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sheehan, L.R., Lane, T.J., Gray, S.E. et al. Factors Associated with Employer Support for Injured Workers During a Workers’ Compensation Claim. J Occup Rehabil 29, 718–727 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09834-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Return to work plan
  • Return to work
  • Workplace injury
  • Mental health conditions