Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the perspectives of key stakeholders in returning to work after minor to serious road traffic injuries: a qualitative study

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

Abstract

Purpose

This qualitative study conducted in Queensland, Australia aimed to explore various stakeholders’ perspectives on (1) the barriers and facilitators of Return to Work (RTW) for injured persons following minor to serious Road Traffic Injuries (RTI) in a fault-based scheme, and to investigate the changes needed to better support RTW following RTI.

Methods

The study was performed using the Interpretive Description methodological approach. Data were collected during interviews (n = 17), one focus group (n = 4), and an open-ended survey (n = 10) with five categories of stakeholders: treating health providers, workplace representatives, legal representatives, rehabilitation advisors, and insurers. Participants were eligible to participate if they had at least one year of employment history in their respective profession in Queensland, Australia, and were experienced in assisting the RTW of people with RTI. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results

Seven themes were extracted reflecting the barriers and facilitators of RTW along with stakeholders’ recommendations to address these barriers. These themes were: (1) knowledge is power; (2) stakeholder expertise; (3) early and appropriate treatment matters; (4) insurers could do better; (5) necessity of employers’ support; (6) fix the disjointed system; (7) importance of individual factors pre- and post- injury. The main barriers identified were stakeholders’ insufficient communication and knowledge on RTW process following RTI.

Conclusions

Individual and system barriers identified in this study suggest that RTW after RTI occurs in a complex system requiring the commitment of all stakeholders. This is particularly important for managing knowledge-related barriers by provision of high quality and easily accessible information about the RTW process, disability schemes, and the nature of RTI.

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

Availability of data and material

All data is available upon the request from the authors.

Code Availability

NVivo 12 software licenced by The University of Queensland.

References

  1. Global status report on road safety. Contract No.: CC BYNC-SA 3.0 IGO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Global regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. 2018 Nov 10. Report No.: 0140–6736 Contract No.: 10159.

  3. Mayou RA, Ehlers A, Bryant B. Posttraumatic stress disorder after motor vehicle accidents: 3-year follow-up of a prospective longitudinal study. Behav Res Ther. 2002;40(6):665–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnes J, Thomas P, editors. Quality of life outcomes in a hospitalized sample of road users involved in crashes. Annual Proceedings - Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine; 2006.

  5. Duckworth MP, Iezzi T. Motor vehicle collisions and their consequences—part II: predictors of impairment and disability. Psychol Injury Law. 2018;11(3):288–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Litchfield F. The cost of road crashes in Australia 2016: An overview of safety strategies. Canberra: The Australian National University; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Collie A, Di Donato M, Iles R. Work disability in Australia: an overview of prevalence, expenditure, support systems and services. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29:526–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gopinath B, Jagnoor J, Harris IA, Nicholas M, Casey P, Blyth F, et al. Prognostic indicators of social outcomes in persons who sustained an injury in a road traffic crash. Injury. 2015;46(5):909–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Donovan M, Khan A, Johnston V. The effect of a workplace-based early intervention program on work-related musculoskeletal compensation outcomes at a poultry meat processing plant. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(1):24–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gray SE, Hassani-Mahmooei B, Kendall E, Cameron ID, Kenardy J, Collie A. Factors associated with graduated return to work following injury in a road traffic crash. J Transp Health. 2018;10:167–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gray SE, Hassani-Mahmooei B, Cameron ID, Kendall E, Kenardy J, Collie A. Patterns and predictors of failed and sustained return-to-work in transport injury insurance claimants. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(4):740–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Athanasou JA. Return to work following whiplash and back injury: a review evaluation. Med Leg J. 2005;73(1):29–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Scuderi GJ, Sherman AL, Brusovanik GV, Pahl MA, Vaccaro AR. Symptomatic cervical disc herniation following a motor vehicle collision: return to work comparative study of workers’ compensation versus personal injury insurance status. Spine J. 2005;5(6):639–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lilley R, Davie G, Langley J, Ameratunga S, Derrett S. Do outcomes differ between work and non-work-related injury in a universal injury compensation system? Findings from the New Zealand Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):995.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Berecki-Gisolf J, Collie A, McClure R. Work disability after road traffic injury in a mixed population with and without hospitalisation. Accid Anal Prev. 2013;51:129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gabbe BJ, Simpson PM, Cameron PA, Ekegren CL, Edwards ER, Page R, et al. Association between perception of fault for the crash and function, return to work and health status 1 year after road traffic injury: a registry-based cohort study. BMJ open. 2015;5(11):e009907-e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fitzharris M, Bowman D, Ludlow K. Factors associated with return-to-work and health outcomes among survivors of road crashes in Victoria. 2010;34(2):153–9.

  18. Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, Côté P, Lemstra M, Berglund A, Nygren Å. Effect of eliminating compensation for pain and suffering on the outcome of insurance claims for whiplash injury. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(16):1179–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Murgatroyd DF, Cameron ID, Harris IA. Understanding the effect of compensation on recovery from severe motor vehicle crash injuries: a qualitative study. Inj Prev. 2011;17(4):222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abedi M, Gane E, Aplin T, Zerguine H, Johnston V. Barriers and facilitators associated with return to work following minor to serious road traffic musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2021.

  21. Berecki-Gisolf J, Clay FJ, Collie A, McClure RJ. Predictors of sustained return to work after work-related injury or disease: insights from workers’ compensation claims records. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(3):283–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Buitenhuis J, de Jong PJ, Jaspers JPC, Groothoff JW. Work disability after whiplash: a prospective cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(3):262–7.

  23. Carriere JS, Thibault P, Adams H, Milioto M, Ditto B, Sullivan MJL. Expectancies mediate the relationship between perceived injustice and return to work following whiplash injury: A 1-year prospective study. Eur J Pain. 2017;21(7):1234–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Carstensen TB, Frostholm L, Oernboel E, Kongsted A, Kasch H, Jensen TS, et al. Post-trauma ratings of pre-collision pain and psychological distress predict poor outcome following acute whiplash trauma: a 12-month follow-up study. Pain. 2008;139(2):248–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murgatroyd DF, Harris IA, Tran Y, Cameron ID. Predictors of return to work following motor vehicle related orthopaedic trauma. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ozegovic D, Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD. What influences positive return to work expectation?: examining associated factors in a population-based cohort of whiplash-associated disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(15):E708–E13.

  27. Murphy P, O’Neill V, Kendall E. Beyond blame: an exposition of systemic barriers in the return-to-work process. Aust J Rehabili Couns. 2003;9(2):118–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Young A, Roessler R, Wasiak R, McPherson M, Poppel M, Anema J. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):557–68.

  29. Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretive description: A noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(2):169–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Thorne SE. Interpretive description: qualitative research for applied practice 2nd. editor. New York: Routledge; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Hunt MR. Strengths and challenges in the use of interpretive description: reflections arising from a study of the moral experience of health professionals in humanitarian work. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(9):1284–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thorne S, Kirkham SR, O’Flynn-Magee K. The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2004;3(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cresswell J. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 3th, editor. USA: SAGE; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thorne S. Interpretive Description: Qualitative Research for Applied Practice. London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Quinn Patton M. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3, editor. London: Sage Publication; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:2333393617742282.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Samoborec S, Ayton D, Ruseckaite R, Evans SM. Biopsychosocial barriers affecting recovery after a minor transport-related injury: A qualitative study from Victoria. Health Expect. 2019;22(5):1003–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Harms L. After the accident: Survivors’ perceptions of recovery following road trauma. 2004;57(2):161–74.

  41. Gopinath B, Jagnoor J, Elbers N, Cameron ID. Overview of findings from a 2-year study of claimants who had sustained a mild or moderate injury in a road traffic crash: prospective study. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Gabbe B, Sleney J, Gosling C, Wilson K, Sutherland A, Hart M, et al. Exploring patient perceptions of barriers and facilitators to recovery following trauma. 2012;18(Suppl 1):A79-A.

  43. Mazza D, Brijnath B, Singh N, Kosny A, Ruseckaite R, Collie A. General practitioners and sickness certification for injury in Australia. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1):100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Elbers NA, Collie A, Hogg-Johnson S, Lippel K, Lockwood K, Cameron ID. Differences in perceived fairness and health outcomes in two injury compensation systems: A comparative study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):658.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Ferrari R, Rowe BH, Majumdar SR, Cassidy JD, Blitz S, Wright SC, et al. Simple educational intervention to improve the recovery from acute whiplash: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(8):699–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kongsted A, Qerama E, Kasch H, Bach FW, Korsholm L, Jensen TS, et al. Education of patients after whiplash injury: is oral advice any better than a pamphlet? Spine. 2008;33(22):E843-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Esiyok B, Korkusuz I, Canturk G, Alkan HA, Karaman AG, Hanci IH. Road traffic accidents and disability: a cross-section study from Turkey. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(21):1333–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. McClune T, Burton AK, Waddell G. Whiplash associated disorders: a review of the literature to guide patient information and advice. Emerg Med J. 2002;19(6):499–506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. National Return to Work. Strategy 2020–2030. Australia: Safe Work Australia; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Principles of Practice for Workplace Rehabilitation. Providers Heads of Workers’ Compensation Authorities; 2019.

  51. Faux SG, Kohler F, Mozer R, Klein LA, Courtenay S, D’Amours SK, et al. The ROARI project - Road Accident Acute Rehabilitation Initiative: a randomised clinical trial of two targeted early interventions for road-related trauma. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(7):639–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Turner-Stokes L, Nair A, Sedki I, Disler PB, Wade DT. Multi‐disciplinary rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults of working age. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005(3).

  53. Burton AKWG. Educational and informational approaches. In: SJ L, editor. New avenues for the prevention of chronic musculoskeletal pain and disability. Oxford: Elsevier; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  54. McClune T, Burton AK, Waddell G. Evaluation of an evidence based patient educational booklet for management of whiplash associated disorders. Emerg Med J. 2003;20(6):514–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Johnson AJN, Paediatric, Nursing CH. Do parents value and use written health information. 1999;2(1):3–7.

  56. Beckett K, Earthy S, Sleney J, Barnes J, Kellezi B, Barker M, et al. Providing effective trauma care: the potential for service provider views to enhance the quality of care (qualitative study nested within a multicentre longitudinal quantitative study). 2014;4(7):e005668.

  57. Realising the health. benefits of work – An evidence update [press release]. Australia: The Australasian Faculty of Occupational & Environmental Medicine; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Prang K-H, Berecki-Gisolf J, Newnam S. Recovery from musculoskeletal injury: the role of social support following a transport accident. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Gabbe BJ, Cameron PA, Williamson OD, Edwards ER, Graves SE, Richardson MD. The relationship between compensable status and long-term patient outcomes following orthopaedic trauma. Med J Aust. 2007;187(1):14–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Beck B, Ekegren CL, Cameron P, Edwards ER, Bucknill A, Judson R, et al. Predictors of recovery in cyclists hospitalised for orthopaedic trauma following an on-road crash. Accid Anal Prev. 2017;106:341–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. O’Donnell ML, Creamer MC, McFarlane AC, Silove D, Bryant RA. Does access to compensation have an impact on recovery outcomes after injury? Med J Aust. 2010;192(6):328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Thompson Burdine J, Thorne S, Sandhu G. Interpretive description: A flexible qualitative methodology for medical education research. Med Educ. 2021;55(3):336–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

MA is supported by The University of Queensland Research Training Scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Masoumeh Abedi, Tammy Aplin, Elise Gane & Venerina Johnston

  2. Allied Health Research Collaborative, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

    Tammy Aplin

  3. Physiotherapy Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

    Elise Gane

  4. Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Australia

    Elise Gane

  5. RECOVER Injury Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Venerina Johnston

Authors
  1. Masoumeh Abedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tammy Aplin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elise Gane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Venerina Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors (MA, VJ, EG, and TA) contributed in developing the idea, data collection, data analysis, and writing up the draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masoumeh Abedi.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest/competing interests.

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was granted by The University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (#2018001264).

Consent to participate

Informed written consent was obtained from the participants.

Consent for publication

Informed written consent was obtained from the participants.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abedi, M., Aplin, T., Gane, E. et al. Exploring the perspectives of key stakeholders in returning to work after minor to serious road traffic injuries: a qualitative study. J Occup Rehabil 33, 93–106 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10051-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10051-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation