Understanding Work Disability Systems and Intervening Upstream



This chapter identifies ways that research on the mechanisms of work disability prevention systems can support the conceptualization of complex causal pathways between work and disability. Such research involves studies of key policies, such as early return to work, and their logic and substance, how implementation occurs, and how actual practice matches up to policy logic and ideals. Examples are provided of system mechanisms research and how these challenge the boundaries of work disability conceptualization. Although system-level interventions are not simple, and can be beyond the scope of researchers, they have the potential to make a positive impact on large numbers of workers. The design and implementation of work reintegration policy and programs, which are increasingly prominent internationally, can be furthered by research evidence that considers the interaction of individual, organizational and system level components.


Occupational Health Work Disability Injured Worker Compensation Claim Work Injury 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anema, J. R., et al. (2009). Can cross country differences in return-to-work after chronic occupational back pain be explained? An exploratory analysis on disability policies in a six country cohort study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19, 419–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beardwood, B. A., Kirsh, B., & Clark, N. J. (2005). Victims twice over: perceptions and experiences of injured workers. Qualitative Health Research, 15(1), 30–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benavides, F. G., et al. (2009). Does return to work occur earlier after work-related sick leave episodes than after non-work-related sick leave episodes? A retrospective cohort study in Spain. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66, 63–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Braveman, P., Egerter, S., & Williams, D. R. (2011). The social determinants of health: coming of age. Annual Review of Public Health, 32, 381–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briand, C., et al. (2007). Work and mental health: Learning from return-to-work rehabilitation programs designed for workers with musculoskeletal disorders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30, 444–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briand, C., et al. (2008). How well do return-to-work interventions for musculoskeletal conditions address the multicausality of work disability? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18, 207–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cote, A. M., et al. (2009). Physiotherapists and use of low back pain guidelines: A qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19, 94–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis-Blake, A., & Broschak, J. P. (2009). Outsourcing and the changing nature of work. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fassier, J. B., Durand, M. J., & Loisel, P. (2011). Implementing return-to-work interventions for workers with low-back pain – a conceptual framework to identify barriers and facilitators. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 37(2), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (2002). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Franche, R. L., et al. (2005). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimising the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 525–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gehlert, S., et al. (2008). Targeting Health Disparities: A Model Linking Upstream Determinants To Downstream Interventions. Health Affairs, 27(2), 339–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haugli, L., Maeland, S., & Magnussen, L. H. (2011). What facilitates return to work? Patients experiences 3 years after occupational rehabilitation. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(4), 573–581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hohnen, P., & Hasle, P. (2011). Making work environment auditable – A ‘critical case’ study of certified occupational health and safety management systems in Denmark. Safety Science, 49(7), 1022–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lippel, K. (2003). The private policing of injured workers in Canada: legitimate management practices or human rights violations? Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 1(2), 97–117.Google Scholar
  18. Lippel, K., et al. (2011). Legal protections governing occupational health and safety and workers’ compensation of temporary employment agency workers in Canada: reflections on regulatory effectiveness. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 9(2), 69–90.Google Scholar
  19. Loisel, P., et al. (2001). Disability prevention: New paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Disease Management & Health Outcomes, 9(7), 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loisel, P., et al. (2005). Prevention of disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 507–524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacEachen, E., et al. (2007). A deliberation on “hurt versus harm” logic in early return to work policy. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 5(2), 41–62.Google Scholar
  22. MacEachen, E., et al. (2010). The “toxic dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 349–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacEachen, E., et al. (2012a). The ‘ability’ paradigm in vocational rehabilitation: challenges in an Ontario Injured Worker Retraining Program. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(1), 115–117. doi: 10.1007/s10926-011-9329-x [2011;e-pub ahead of press].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacEachen, E., et al. (2012b). Workers’ compensation experience rating rules and the danger to worker safety in the temporary work agency sector. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 10(1), 77–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marmot, M. (2010) The Marmot review: Strategic review of health inequalities in England post-2010. In The Marmot Review: Fair society, healthy lives. London: London Health Observatory.Google Scholar
  26. Nilsen, S., et al. (2011). Considerations made by the general practitioner when dealing with sick-listing of patients suffering from subjective and composite health complaints. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 29, 7–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. OECD. (2010). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers. A synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  28. Papadopoulos, G., et al. (2010). Occupational and public health and safety in a changing work environment: An integrated approach for risk assessment and prevention. Safety Science, 48(8), 943–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parrish, M., & Schofield, T. (2005). Injured workers’ experiences of workers’ compensation claims process: institutional disrespect and the neoliberal state. Health Sociology Review, 14(1), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pransky, G., et al. (2010). Development and validation of competencies for return to work coordinators. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(1), 41–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rial-González, E., et al. (2005). Priorities for occupational safety and health research in the EU-25. Luxembourg: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.Google Scholar
  32. Robertson, L. S. (1998). Causal webs, preventive brooms, and housekeepers. Social Science & Medicine, 46(1), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roberts-Yates, C. (2003). The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: the need for new operational frameworks. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(16), 898–907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rubery, J., et al. (2002). Changing organizational forms and the employment relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 645–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sager, L., & James, C. (2005). Injured workers’ perspectives of their rehabilitation process under the New South Wales Workers Compensation System. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shaw, W., et al. (2008). A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(1), 2–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shortell, S. (1999). The emergence of qualitative methods in health services research. Health Services Research, 34(5), 1083–1090.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Stahl, C., Mussener, U., & Svensson, T. (2012). Implementation of standardized time limits in sickness insurance and return-to-work: Experiences of four actors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(16), 1404–1411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stahl, C., et al. (2010). A matter of trust? A study of coordination of Swedish stakeholders in return-to-work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 299–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Torner, M. (2011). The “social-physiology” of safety. An integrative approach to understanding organisational psychological mechanisms behind safety performance. Safety Science, 49, 1262–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wales, C., Matthews, L. R., & Donelly, M. (2010). Medically unexplained chronic pain in Australia: Difficulties for rehabilitation providers and workers in pain. Work, 36, 167–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Walker, G. W. (2010). A safety counterculture challenge to a “safety climate”. Safety Science, 48(3), 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whitehead, M., & Popay, J. (2010). Swimming upstream? Taking action on the social determinants of health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 1234–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young, A. E. (2012). Return to work stakeholders’ perspectives on work disability. In P. Loisel et al. (Eds.), Handbook of work disability: Prevention and management. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Young, A. E., et al. (2005). A developmental conceptualization of return to work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 557–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Work & HealthTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations