Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Mobility in the Labor Market a Solution to Sustainable Return to Work for Some Sick Listed Persons?

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

Abstract

Aim: The study aims to identify characteristics associated with long-term expectations of professional stability or mobility among recently sick-listed workers, and to study whether expectations of professional mobility and turnover intentions were associated with duration of sick leave. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on baseline measures in a prospective cohort study of patients who were granted sick leave due to musculoskeletal (MSD) or mental (MD) disorders. A total of 1,375 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A baseline questionnaire was sent by mail within 3 weeks of their first day of certified medical sickness; 962 individuals responded (70%). The main diagnosis was MSD in 595 (62%) individuals and MD in 367 (38%). Results: Expectations of ability to remain in the present profession in 2 years was associated with better health and health-related resources, younger age, higher education, and better effort—reward balance. Effort-reward imbalance, MD, high burnout scores, and better educational and occupational position were associated with turnover intentions. Low expectations of ability to remain in the present profession defined two vulnerable groups with regard to RTW, those with no turnover intentions were older, had lower personal resources, more often had MSD, and slower RTW rate. Those with turnover intentions had a clear effort-reward imbalance and high burnout scores. Conclusions: The results of this explorative study underline the importance of differentiating RTW-interventions based on knowledge about the sick-listed person’s resources in relation to the labor market and the work place, and their expectations of future employment and employability.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anema JR, Schellart AJ, Cassidy JD, Loisel P, Veerman TJ, van der Beek AJ. 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. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:419–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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;15:607–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Loisel P, Abenhhaim L, Durand P. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine. 1997;22:2911–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche RL, Irvin E. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32:257–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wåhlin C, Ekberg K, Öberg B. Professional reasoning in occupational health service for patients with musculoskeletal and mental disorders. Sweden: Linköping University; 2011. Manuscript in preparation.

  6. Cornelius LR, van der Klink JJ, Groothoff JW, Brouwer S. Prognostic factors of long term disability due to mental disorders: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2010; Nov 6. Epub ahead of print.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stahl C, Svensson T, Petersson G, Ekberg K. Swedish rehabilitation professionals’ perspectives on work ability assessments in a changing sickness insurance system. Disabil Rehabil. 2010. doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.532282.

  9. Schaufeli WB, Arnold B, Bakker AB, Van Rhenen W. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J Organ Behav. 2009;30:893–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shirom A, Melamed S, Toker S, Berliner S, Shapira I. Burnout and health review: current knowledge and future research directions. In: Hodgkinson GP, Ford JK, editors. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 20. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 2005. p. 269–309.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heijbel B, Josephson M, Jensen I, Vingard E. Employer, insurance, and health system response to long-term sick leave in the public sector: policy implications. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heymans MW, de Vet HC, Knol DL, Bongers PM, Koes BW, van Mechelen W. Workers’ beliefs and expectations affect return to work over 12 months. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(4):685–95.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Reiso H, Nygard JF, Jorgensen GS, Holanger R, Soldal D,Bruusgaard D. Back to work: predictors of return to work among patients with back disorders certified as sick: a two-year follow-up study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1468–73; discussion 1473–4.

  14. Schultz IZ, Crook J, Meloche GR, Berkowitz J, Milner R, Zuberbier OA, et al. Psychosocial factors predictive of occupational low back disability: towards development of a return-to-work model. Pain. 2004;107:77–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mondloch MV, Cole DC, Frank JW. Does how you do depend on how you think you’ll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients’ recovery expectations and health outcomes. CMAJ. 2001;165:174–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shaw WS, Huang YH. Concerns and expectations about returning to work with low back pain: identifying themes from focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:1269–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tjulin A, MacEachen E, Ekberg K. Exploring workplace actors experiences of the social organization of return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:311–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Blackman I, Chiveralls K. Factors influencing workplace supervisor readiness to engage in workplace-based vocational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil. 2011. doi:10.1007/s10926-011-9297-1.

  20. Holmgren K, Dahlin Ivanoff S. Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:93–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shaw WS, Robertson MM, McLellan RK, Verma S, Pransky G. A controlled case study of supervisor training to optimize response to injury in the food processing industry. Work. 2006;26:107–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Swaen GM, Kant IJ, van Amelsvoort LG, Beurskens AJ. Job mobility, its determinants, and its effects: longitudinal data from the Maastricht Cohort Study. J Occup Health Psychol. 2002;7:121–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Aronsson G, Goransson S. Permanent employment but not in a preferred occupation: psychological and medical aspects, research implications. J Occup Health Psychol. 1999;4:152–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Liljegren M, Ekberg K. Job mobility as predictor of health and burnout. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2009;82:317–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Janzen JA, Silvius J, Jacobs S, Slaughter S, Dalziel W, Drummond N. What is a health expectation? Developing a pragmatic conceptual model from psychological theory. Health Expect. 2006;9:37–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tuomi K, Ilmarinen I, Jahkola A, Katajarime L, Tulkki A. Work ability index. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hagedoorn M, van Yperen N, van der Vliet E, Buunk B. Employees′ reactions to problematic events: a circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. J Organ Behav. 1999;20:309–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liljegren M, Nordlund A, Ekberg K. Psychometric evaluation and further validation of the Hagedoorn et al. modified EVLN measure. Scand J Psychol. 2008;49:169–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990; 16:199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion paper. Center for Health Economics, University of York; 1995.

  32. Melamed S, Kushnir T, Shirom A. Burnout and risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Behav Med. 1992;18:53–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pearlin LI, Lieberman MA, Menaghan EG, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav. 1981;22:337–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Main CJ, Wood PL, Hollis S, Spanswick CC, Waddell G. The distress and risk assessment method. A simple patient classification to identify distress and evaluate the risk of poor outcome. Spine. 1992;17:42–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ahlstrom L, Grimby-Ekman A, Hagberg M, Dellve L. The work ability index and single-item question: associations with sick leave, symptoms, and health—a prospective study of women on long-term sick leave. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36:404–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Alavinia SM, de Boer AG, van Duivenbooden JC, Frings-Dresen MH, Burdorf A. Determinants of work ability and its predictive value for disability. Occup Med (Lond). 2009;59:32–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Niedhammer I, Peter R. The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:1483–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol. 1996;1:27–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Siegrist J, Wege N, Puhlhofer F, Wahrendorf M. A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009;82:1005–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Preckel D, Meinel M, Kudielka B, Haug H-J, Fischer JE. Effort-reward-imbalance, overcommitment and self-reported health: Is it the interaction that matters? J Occup Organ Psychol. 2007;80:91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Felstead A, Fuller A, Jewson N, Kakavelakis K, Unwin L. Grooving to the same tunes? Learning, training and productive systems in the aerobics studio. Work Employ Soc. 2007;21:189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fahlen G, Goine H, Edlund C, Arrelov B, Knutsson A, Peter R. Effort-reward imbalance, “locked in” at work, and long-term sick leave. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009;82:191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Aronsson G, Dallner M, Gustafsson K. Yrkes-och arbetsplatsinlåsning. En empirisk studie av omfattning och hälsokonsekvenser (Locked-in in job and work place. An empirical study of extent and health effects). Arbete och Hälsa. 2000;5:1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mörtvik R, Rautio K. Jakten på superarbetskraften fortsätter! TCO granskar. (The Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees, TCO). Stockholm: TCO; 2008. p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kaye HS, Jans LH, Jones EC. Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? J Occup Rehabil. 2011. doi:10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8.

  46. Siegrist J. Social reciprocity and health: new scientific evidence and policy implications. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2005;30:1033–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Conklin MH, Desselle SP. Job turnover intentions among pharmacy faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71:62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Flinkman M, Laine M, Leino-Kilpi H, Hasselhorn HM, Salantera S. Explaining young registered Finnish nurses’ intention to leave the profession: a questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45:727–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Brannon D, Barry T, Kemper P, Schreiner A, Vasey J. Job perceptions and intent to leave among direct care workers: evidence from the better jobs better care demonstrations. Gerontologist. 2007;47:820–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Acker GM. The effect of organizational conditions (role conflict, role ambiguity, opportunities for professional development, and social support) on job satisfaction and intention to leave among social workers in mental health care. Commun Ment Health J. 2004;40:65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Spector PE, Jex SM. Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee affect, absence, turnover intentions, and health. J Appl Psychol. 1991;76:46–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Yen-Yu Lin B, Yeh Y-C, Lin W-H. The influence of job characteristics on job outcomes of pharmacists in hospital, clinical, and community pharmacies. J Med Syst. 2007;31:224–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kivimaki M, Vahtera J, Elovainio M, Pentti J, Virtanen M. Human costs of organizational downsizing: comparing health trends between leavers and stayers. Am J Commun Psychol. 2003;32:57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Origo F, Pagani L. Flexicurity and job satisfaction in Europe: the importance of perceived and actual job stability for well-being at work. Labour Econ. 2009;16:547–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS) and from the County Council of Östergötland. We thank Henrik Magnusson for statistical analyses.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Kerstin Ekberg

  2. Helix Vinn Excellence Centre, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Kerstin Ekberg

  3. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Medicine and Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Charlotte Wåhlin & Birgitta Öberg

  4. Division of Health Care Analysis, Department of Medicine and Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Jan Persson & Lars Bernfort

Authors
  1. Kerstin Ekberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte Wåhlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Persson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lars Bernfort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Birgitta Öberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin Ekberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ekberg, K., Wåhlin, C., Persson, J. et al. Is Mobility in the Labor Market a Solution to Sustainable Return to Work for Some Sick Listed Persons?. J Occup Rehabil 21, 355–365 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9322-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9322-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation