Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Cooperation to Conflict? Swedish Rehabilitation Professionals’ Experiences of Interorganizational Cooperation

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

Abstract

Purpose This article analyses Swedish rehabilitation professionals’ experiences of interorganizational cooperation in return-to-work and labour market reintegration. Method Two groups (n = 15) from different organizations met on a regular basis to discuss their practice from a cooperation perspective. The participants had experience of cooperation in the organizational setting of Coordination Associations. The groups worked with a tutor according to a problem-based methodology, to discuss how their practice is influenced by new structures for cooperation. The material was analysed inductively using qualitative content analysis. Results Interorganizational cooperation in rehabilitation is generally perceived as promoting coherence and communication. Nevertheless, there are several contradictory factors in the implementation of such work forms, primarily inflexible sickness insurance regulations and inability of managers to implement cooperation in regular practice. Conclusions While interorganizational cooperation promotes professional discretion and tailored solutions, the insurance system contradicts such ambitions through increased governance. Ultimately, the contradictory tendencies of cooperative initiatives and the stricter governance of sickness insurance regulations are political matters. If political attempts to promote interorganizational cooperation are to succeed, the increasing sectorization that results from strict governance of sickness insurance regulations needs to be targeted on a system level.

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. Brunarski D, Shaw L, Doupe L. Moving toward virtual interdisciplinary teams and a multi-stakeholder approach in community-based return-to-work care. Work. 2008;30(3):329–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Franche R-L, 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):525–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J. Return-to-work: the importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work. 2000;17(1):11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Loisel P, Durand M-J, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention: new paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Dis Manage Health Outcomes. 2001;9(7):351–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Loisel P, José-Durand M, Baril R, Gervais J, Falardeau M. Interorganizational collaboration in occupational rehabilitation: perceptions of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):581–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche R-L. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(4):257–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ståhl C, Svensson T, Petersson G, Ekberg K. The work ability divide: holistic and reductionistic approaches in Swedish interdisciplinary rehabilitation teams. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(3):264–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ståhl C, Svensson T, Petersson G, Ekberg K. A matter of trust? A study of coordination of Swedish stakeholders in return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):299–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, Tulder MV, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):507–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gardner BT, Pransky G, Shaw WS, Hong QN, Loisel P. Researcher perspectives on competencies of return-to-work coordinators. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(1):72–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pransky G, Shaw WS, Loisel P, Hong QN, Désorcy B. Development and validation of competencies for return to work coordinators. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(1):41–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shaw W, Hong Q-N, Pransky G, Loisel P. A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):2–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jakobsson B, Bergroth A, Schüldt K, Ekholm J. Do systematic multiprofessional rehabilitation group meetings improve efficiency in vocational rehabilitation? Work. 2005;24:279–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prins R. Integrated services in rehabilitation—on coordination of organization and financing: synthesis report: European Commission, Peer Review and Assessment in Social Inclusion; 2006.

  15. Prins R. Integrated services in rehabilitation—on coordination of organisation and financing: discussion paper: European Commission, Peer Review and Assessment in Social Inclusion; 2006.

  16. Sandström U, Axelsson R, Lundborg CS. Inter-organisational integration for rehabilitation in Sweden—variation in views on long-term goals. Int J Integr Care. 2004;4:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wihlman U, Lundborg CS, Axelsson R. Barriers of inter-organisational integration in vocational rehabilitation. Int J Integr Care. 2008;8:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. London: Sage; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Downey P, Waters M. Developing the primary healthcare team as a learning organisation: a new model using problem-based learning. Education Prim Care. 2005;16(3):301–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lohman MC. Cultivating problem-solving skills through problem-based approaches to professional development. Hum Resou Dev Q. 2002;13(3):243–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yeo RK. (Re)viewing problem-based learning: an exploratory study on the perceptions of its applicability to the workplace. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22(4):369–91.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nielsen KA, Svensson L, editors. Action and interactive research: beyond practice and theory. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Neuman WL. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  24. MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Chamber L. The “toxic dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):349–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lipsky M. Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Evans T, Harris J. Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. Br J Soc Work. 2004;34(6):871–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the coordinators in the two CAs who helped in recruiting the participants for this study, and Ellen MacEachen for providing valuable comments on the paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, National Centre for Work and Rehabilitation, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden

    Christian Ståhl, Tommy Svensson & Kerstin Ekberg

  2. HELIX VINN Excellence Centre, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Christian Ståhl & Kerstin Ekberg

  3. Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Division of Sociology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Tommy Svensson

  4. Nordic School of Public Health, Göteborg, Sweden

    Tommy Svensson

Authors
  1. Christian Ståhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tommy Svensson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kerstin Ekberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Ståhl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ståhl, C., Svensson, T. & Ekberg, K. From Cooperation to Conflict? Swedish Rehabilitation Professionals’ Experiences of Interorganizational Cooperation. J Occup Rehabil 21, 441–448 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9281-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9281-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation