Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Return-to-Work Outcomes Following Work Disability: Stakeholder Motivations, Interests and Concerns

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

Abstract

Introduction: Satisfaction with return-to-work (RTW) outcomes is dependent on many factors, including a clear exposition of what people define as a “good outcome” and the information they use to determine if such an outcome has been achieved. This paper defines the key stakeholders involved in the RTW process and discusses the need to understand their motivations, interests, and concerns. Methods:A review of the literature and discussions with RTW researchers conducted by a multidisciplinary group of academic researchers. Results: Our analysis suggests that RTW stakeholders can share the goal of a successful RTW; however, this consensus has to be viewed in light of other, sometimes competing, goals and the environments in which stakeholders operate. Conclusions: It is suggested that more clearly articulating and operationalizing stakeholders' perspectives will allow researchers to advance the understanding of RTW interventions and outcomes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scheel IB, Hagen KB, Oxman AD. Active sick leave for patients with back pain: All the players onside, but still no action. Spine 2002; 27: 654–659.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Loisel P. A tool for assessing rehabilitation and workplace factors. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2001; 20: 35–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Creen M. Best practices for disability management. J Ont Occup Health Nurses Assoc 2002; Winter: 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chandler D. Constructing return to work programs: Building for better returns. In: Workers' compensation: Containing costs and managing outcomes—A PERI symposium, 2003. Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Williams C, Reno V, Burton JF, Jr. Workers' compensation: Benefits, coverage, and costs, 2001. Washington, DC: National Academy of Social Insurance, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pimentel R. The return to work process: A case management approach. Chatsworth, CA: Milt Wright, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Amick BC, Lerner D, Rogers WH, Rooney T, Katz J. A review of health-related work outcome measures and their uses, and recommended measures. Spine 2000; 25: 3152–3160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pransky G, Gatchel R, Linton S, Loisel P. Improving return-to-work research. J Occup Rehabil (this issue).

  9. Power P, Hershenson D. Assessment of career development and maturity. In: Bolton B, ed. Handbook of measurement and evaluation in rehabilitation. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, 2001, pp. 339–363.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Frank J, Brooker A, DeMaio S, Kerr M, Maetzel A, Shannon H, et al. Disability resulting from occupational low back pain. Part II: What do we know about secondary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention after disability begins. Spine 1996; 21: 2918–2929.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Szymanski E, Parker G, Ryan C, Merz M, Trevino-Espinoza B, Johnston-Rodriguez S. Work and disability: Basic constructs. In: Szymanski E, Parker R, eds. Work and disability. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, 2003, pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Burton WN, Conti DJ, Chen CY, Schultz AB, Edington DW. The role of health risk factors and disease on worker productivity. J Occup Environ Med 1999; 41: 863–877.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lerner DJ, Amick BC, 3rd, Malspeis S, Rogers WH. A national survey of health-related work limitations among employed persons in the United States. Disabil Rehabil 2000; 22: 225–232.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lerner D, Amick BC, 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care 2001; 39: 72–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McMordie W, Barker S, Paolo T. Return to work (RTW) after head injury. Brain Injury 1990; 4: 57–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Malec JF, Buffington AL, Moessner AM, Degiorgio L. A medical/vocational case coordination system for persons with brain injury: An evaluation of employment outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 1007–1015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnstone B, Vessell R, Bounds T, Hoskins S, Sherman A. Predictors of success for state vocational rehabilitation clients with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003; 84: 161–167.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Keogh JP, Nuwayhid I, Gordon JL, Gucer PW. The impact of occupational injury on injured worker and family: Outcomes of upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders in Maryland workers. Am J Ind Med 2000; 38: 498–506.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pransky G, Benjamin K, Savageau J, Currivan D, Fletcher K. Outcomes in work-related injuries: A comparison of older and younger workers. Am J Ind Med 2005; 47: 104–112.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rudolph L, Dervin K, Cheadle A, Maizlish N, Wickizer T. What do injured workers think about their medical care and outcomes after work injury? J Occup Environ Med 2002; 44: 425–434.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Strunin L, Boden LI. The workers' compensation system: Worker friend or foe? Am J Ind Med 2004; 45: 338–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Strunin L, Boden LI. Family consequences of chronic back pain. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 1385–1393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wickizer TM, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Turner JA, Mootz R, Smith-Weller T. Patient satisfaction, treatment experience, and disability outcomes in a population-based cohort of injured workers in Washington State: Implications for quality improvement. Health Serv Res 2004; 39: 727–748.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mittag O, Kolenda KD, Nordman KJ, Bernien J, Maurischat C. Return to work after myocardial infarction/coronary artery bypass grafting: Patients' and physicians' initial viewpoints and outcome 12 months later. Soc Sci Med 2001; 52: 1441–1450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Levack W, McPherson K, McNaughton H. Success in the workplace following traumatic brain injury: Are we evaluating what is most important? Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 290–298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shilts J, Managhan J. WCD's injured worker survey. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Workers' Compensation Division, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sum J, Frank J. Return-to-work in California: Listening to stakeholders' voices. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pransky G, Benjamin K, Hill-Fotouhi C, Himmelstein J, Fletcher KE, Katz JN, et al. Outcomes in work-related upper extremity and low back injuries: Results of a retrospective study. Am J Ind Med 2000; 37: 400–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Drake RE, Xie H, McHugo GJ, Shumway M. Three-year outcomes of long-term patients with co-occurring bipolar and substance use disorders. Biol Psychiatry 2004; 56: 749–756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cott CA. Client-centred rehabilitation: Client perspectives. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 1411–1422.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pransky G, Benjamin K, Hill-Fotouhi C, Fletcher KE, Himmelstein J, Katz JN. Work-related outcomes in occupational low back pain: A multidimensional analysis. Spine 2002; 27: 864–870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Westmorland MG, Williams R, Strong S, Arnold E. Perspectives on work (re)entry for persons with disabilities: Implications for clinicians. Work 2002; 18: 29–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jakobsen K. Employment and reconstruction of the self: A model of space for maintenance of identify of occupation. Scand J Occup Therapy 2001; 8: 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Larsson A, Gard G. How can the rehabilitation planning process at the workplace be improved? A qualitative study from employers' perspective. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13: 169–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thomason T. Economic incentives and workplace safety. In: Sullivan T, Frank J, eds. Preventing and managing disabling injury at work. London and New York: Taylor and Francis, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Guzman J, Frank J, Stock S, Yassi A, Loisel P. Stakeholder views of return to work after occupational injury. In: Sullivan T, Frank J, eds. Preventing and managing disabling injury at work. London and New York: Taylor and Francis, 2003, pp. 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Amick BC, 3rd, Habeck R, Hunt H, Fossel AH, Chapin A, Keller RB, et al. Measuring the impact of organizational behaviors on work disability prevention and management. J Occup Rehabil 2000; 10: 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Westmorland M, Buys N, Clements N. Disability management in a sample of Australian self-insured companies. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 746–754.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Westmorland MG, Williams R. Employers and policy makers can make a difference to the employment of persons with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 802–809.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shaw WS, Feuerstein M. Generating workplace accommodations: Lessons learned from the integrated case management study. J Occup Rehabil 2004; 14: 207–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kyes KB, Wickizer TM, Franklin G. Employer satisfaction with workers' compensation health care: Results of the Washington State Workers' Compensation Managed Care Pilot. J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45: 234–240.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fisher TF. Perception differences between groups of employees identifying the factors that influence a return to work after a work-related musculoskeletal injury. Work 2003; 21: 211–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hunt H, Habeck R, VanTol B, Scully S. Disability prevention among Michigan employers. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1993, Report no.: 93-0004.

  44. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. http://www3.who.int/icf/icftemplate.cfm?myurl = introduction.html%20&mytitle = Introduction. Geneva: WHO, 2002.

  45. Pransky G, Katz JN, Benjamin K, Himmelstein J. Improving the physician role in evaluating work ability and managing disability: A survey of primary care practitioners. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 867–874.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Anema JR, Van Der Giezen AM, Buijs PC, Van Mechelen W. Ineffective disability management by doctors is an obstacle for return-to-work: A cohort study on low back pain patients sicklisted for 3–4 months. Occup Environ Med 2002; 59: 729–733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Yassi A, Hassard TH, Kopelow MM, Schnabl G. Evaluating medical performance in the diagnosis and treatment of occupational health problems: A standardized patient approach. J Occup Med 1990; 32: 582–585.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pransky G, Wasiak R, Himmelstein J. Disability systems: The physician's role. Clin Occup Environ Med 2001; 1: 829–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hoffman H, Guidotti TL. Basic clinical skills in occupational medicine. Prim Care 1994; 21: 225–236.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Atlas SJ, Wasiak R, van den Ancker M, Webster B, Pransky G. Primary care involvement and outcomes of care in patients with a workers' compensation claim for back pain. Spine 2004; 29: 1041–1048.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bruckman RZ, Harris JS. Occupational medicine practice guidelines. Occup Med 1998; 13: 679–691.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Robinson JP, Rondinelli RD, Scheer SJ, Weinstein SM. Industrial rehabilitation medicine. 1. Why is industrial rehabilitation medicine unique? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 78: S3–S9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Abenhaim L, Suissa S, Rossignol M. Risk of recurrence of occupational back pain over 3-year follow-up. Br J Ind Med 1988; 45: 829–833.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wasiak R, Verma S, Pransky G, Webster B. Risk factors for recurrent episodes of care and work disability: Case of low back pain. J Occup Environ Med 2004; 46: 68–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wickizer T, Franklin G, Plaeger-Brockway R, Mootz R. Improving the quality of workers' compensation health care delivery: The Washington State occupational health services project. Milbank Q 2001; 79: 5–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Williams RM, Westmorland M. Perspectives on workplace disability management: A review of the literature. Work 2002; 19: 87–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Brooker A, Sinclair S, Clarke J, Pennick V, Hogg-Johnson S. Effective disability management and return-to-work practices: What we can learn from low back pain. http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/rcwc/research/brooker-disability.pdf. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health, 2000.

  58. Sim J. Improving return-to-work strategies in the United States disability programs, with analysis of program practices in Germany and Sweden. Soc Secur Bull 1999; 62: 41–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Rubin S, Roessler R. Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Shaw WS, Feuerstein M, Lincoln AE, Miller VI, Wood PM. Case management services for work related upper extremity disorders. Integrating workplace accommodation and problem solving. AAOHN J 2001; 49: 378–389.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Margoshes B, Webster B. Why do occupational injuries have different health outcomes? In: Mayer T, Gatchel R, Polatin P, eds. Occupational musculoskeletal disorders: Function, outcomes, and evidence. Philadelphia, PA: LW&W, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Waddel G, Aylward M, Sawney P. Back pain, incapacity for work and social security benefits: An international literature review and analysis. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Fulton-Kehoe D, Franklin G, Weaver M, Cheadle A. Years of productivity lost among injured workers in Washington state: Modeling disability burden in workers' compensation. Am J Ind Med 2000; 37: 656–662.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Schriner K. A disability studies perspective on employment issues and policies for disabled people: An international view. In: Albrecht G, Seelman K, Bury M, eds. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001, pp. 642–662.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Drake R. Welfare states and disabled people. In: Albrecht G, Seelman K, Bury M, eds. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001, pp. 412–429.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Burton JF, Jr. A primer on workers' compensation. Workers' Compens Policy Rev 2004; 4: 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bloch F, Prins R. Who returns to work and why? A six country study on work incapacity and reintegration. New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): International Social Security Series, Vol. 5, 2001.

  68. Cater B. Employment, wage, and accommodation patterns of permanently injured workers. J Labor Econ 2000; 18: 74–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Workplace Health Safety and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick. Report to stakeholders: Working hard and working together. New Brunswick, Canada: Workplace Health, Safety, and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Bickenbach J. Disability human rights, law and policy. In: Albrecht G, Seelman K, Bury M, eds. Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001, pp. 565–584.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Wofford J, Goodwin V, Premack S. Meta-analysis of the antecedents of personal goal level and of the antecedents and consequences of goal commitment. J Manage 1992; 18: 595–615.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Latham G, Locke E, Erez M. The determinants of goal commitment. Acad Manage Rev 1988; 13: 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Klein H. Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and expectancy thoeries. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991; 49: 230–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Klein H, Wesson M, Hollenbeck J, Alge B. Goal commitment and the goal setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. J Appl Psychol 1999; 84: 885–896.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Loisel P, Abenhaim L, Durand P, Esdaile JM, Suissa S, Gosselin L, et al. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine 1997; 22: 2911–2918.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Department for Work and Pensions. Pathways to work: Helping people into employment. London: Department of Work and Pensions, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Young AE, Roessler RT, Wasiak R, McPherson KM, van Poppel MN, Anema JR. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehabil (this issue).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Disability Research, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, 01748, MA, USA

    Amanda E. Young PhD & Radoslaw Wasiak

  2. Rehabilitation, Human Resources, and Communication Disorders Department, College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    Richard T. Roessler

  3. Centre for Physical Rehabilitation Research, Division of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Kathryn M. McPherson

  4. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    J. R. Anema & Mireille N. M. van Poppel

Authors
  1. Amanda E. Young PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Radoslaw Wasiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard T. Roessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn M. McPherson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. R. Anema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mireille N. M. van Poppel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda E. Young PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Young, A.E., Wasiak, R., Roessler, R.T. et al. Return-to-Work Outcomes Following Work Disability: Stakeholder Motivations, Interests and Concerns. J Occup Rehabil 15, 543–556 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8033-0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8033-0

Key Words

Search

Navigation