Advertisement

Differences Over Time in the Prognostic Effect of Return to Work Self-Efficacy on a Sustained Return to Work

  • Oliver BlackEmail author
  • Malcolm R. Sim
  • Alexander Collie
  • Peter Smith
Article
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose This study investigated the association between return to work self-efficacy (RTW-SE) and sustained return to work (RTW) at two different time points, over a 12-month period. The primary objective of the study was to examine if the relationship between RTW-SE and a sustained RTW changed over the RTW timeline. Methods This study used survey responses from a longitudinal cohort of n = 410 workers’ compensation claimants with either an upper-body musculoskeletal injury or a psychological injury. A path analysis tested the associations between RTW-SE and a sustained RTW at two time-points. A Wald χ2 test compared nested models to determine if the association changed over time. Results RTW-SE measured at time- point 1 (T1) was associated with a sustained RTW at time-point two (T2) (β = 0.24, P < 0.05) but no association was found between RTW-SE at T2 and a sustained RTW at time-point three (T3) (β = 0.017, n.s.). Model comparisons revealed significant differences in the associations between RTW-SE and a sustained RTW, with the relationship being stronger in the early phase of RTW compared to the latter phase (χ2 = 5.002, p = 0.03). Conclusions The results indicate that RTW-SE at 4–6 months post-injury is important for a sustained RTW 6-months later although RTW-SE at 10–12 months post-injury had a negligible association over the same duration. Further research should investigate whether these findings generalize to other populations and what factors other than RTW-SE are associated with RTW in the later stages of the RTW process.

Keywords

Self efficacy Return to work Workers’ compensation Occupational injuries 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project is funded by a Linkage Grant from the Australian Research Council (LP130100091). P. M. Smith was supported by the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council (DE120101580). He is currently supported by a Research Chair in Gender, Work and Health from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Oliver Black, Malcolm Sim, Alexander Collie and Peter smith declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Australia SW. Key workers’ compensation information, Australia 2014. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lane TCA, Hassani-Mahmooei B. Work-related injury and illness in Australia, 2004 to 2014. What is the incidence of work-relates conditions and their impact on time lost from work by state and territory, age, gender and injury type? Melbourne: Monash University, ISCRR; 2016. Report No.: 118-0616-R02.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waddell GBA. Is work good for your health and well-being? London: TSO; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    SafeWork Australia. The cost of work-related injury and illness for Australian employers, workers and the community: 2008–09. Canberra: SafeWork Australia; 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Safework Australia. Australian workers’ compensation statistics 2015–2016. Canberra: Safework Australia; 2017.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Australia S. The incidence of accepted workers’ compensati on claims for mental stress in Australia. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knauf MT, Schultz IZ. Current conceptual models of return to work. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return to work: from research to practice. Boston: Springer; 2016. p. 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dasinger LK, Krause N, Deegan LJ, Brand RJ, Rudolph L. Physical workplace factors and return to work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2000;42(3):323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krause N, Dasinger LK, Deegan LJ, Rudolph L, Brand RJ. Psychosocial job factors and return-to-work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40(4):374–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McIntosh G, Frank J, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C, Hall H. Prognostic factors for time receiving workers’ compensation benefits in a cohort of patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(2):147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nastasia J, Tcaciuc R, Coutu M. Strategies for preventing prolonged disability in workers compensated for work related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic and comprehensive literature review. Montreal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail; 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart A, Polak E, Young R, Schultz I. Injured workers’ construction of expectations of return to work with sub-acute back pain: the role of perceived uncertainty. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fadyl J, McPherson K. Return to work after injury: a review of evidence regarding expectations and injury perceptions, and their influence on outcome. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(4):362–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy—toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Black O, Keegel T, Sim MR, Collie A, Smith P. The effect of self-efficacy on return-to-work outcomes for workers with psychological or upper-body musculoskeletal injuries: a review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;28(1):16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clay FJ, Berecki-Gisolf J, Collie A. How well do we report on compensation systems in studies of return to work: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(1):111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Bultmann U, van der Klink JJ, Groothoff JW. A prospective study of return to work across health conditions: perceived work attitude, self-efficacy and perceived social support. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(1):104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nieuwenhuijsen K, Noordik E, van Dijk FJH, van der Klink JJ. Return to work perceptions and actual return to work in workers with common mental disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(2):290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Volker D, Zijlstra-Vlasveld M, Brouwers E, Lomwel A, Feltz-Cornelis C. Return-to-work self-efficacy and actual return to work among long-term sick-listed employees. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(2):423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brouwer S, Amick BC 3rd, Lee H, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S. The predictive validity of the return-to-work self-efficacy scale for return-to-work outcomes in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(4):725–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huijs J, Koppes LLJ, Taris TW, Blonk RWB. Differences in predictors of return to work among long-term sick-listed employees with different self-reported reasons for sick leave. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(3):301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lagerveld SE, Brenninkmeijer V, Blonk RWB, Twisk J, Schaufeli WB. Predictive value of work-related self-efficacy change on RTW for employees with common mental disorders. Occup Environ Med. 2016;74(5):381–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laisné F, Lecomte C, Corbière M. Biopsychosocial predictors of prognosis in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature (corrected and republished). Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(22):1912–1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Truchon M, Fillion L. Biopsychosocial determinants of chronic disability and low-back pain: a review. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10(2):117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Evanoff B, Dale AM, Descatha A. A conceptual model of musculoskeletal disorders for occupational health practitioners. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014;27(1):145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dimitriadis C, LaMontagne AD, Lilley R, Hogg-Johnson S, Sim M, Smith P. Cohort profile: workers’ compensation in a changing Australian labour market: the return to work (RTW) study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e016366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Young AE, Viikari-Juntura E, Boot CRL, Chan C, de Porras DGR, Linton SJ. Workplace outcomes in work-disability prevention research: a review with recommendations for future research. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(4):434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vogel N, Schandelmaier S, Zumbrunn T, Ebrahim S, de Boer ELW, Busse JW, et al. Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011618.pub2.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Black O, Sim MR, Collie A, Smith P. A return-to-work self-efficacy scale for workers with psychological or musculoskeletal work-related injuries. Qual Quant. 2016;51(1):413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Black O, Sim MR, Collie A, Smith P. Early-claim modifiable factors associated with return-to-work self-efficacy among workers injured at work: are there differences between psychological and musculoskeletal injuries? J Occup Environ Med. 2017;59(12):e257–e62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Breaugh JA. The measurement of work autonomy. Hum Relat. 1985;38(6):551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yu C. Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Los Angeles: University of California; 2002.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, et al. Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropr Man Ther. 2016;24:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brouwer S, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Lee H, Krause N, Shaw WS. Return-to-work self-efficacy: development and validation of a scale in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Black
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Malcolm R. Sim
    • 1
  • Alexander Collie
    • 3
  • Peter Smith
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental HealthMonash UniversityMelbourne/BurwoodAustralia
  2. 2.Department of ManagementDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  3. 3.Insurance Work and Health GroupMonash UniversityMelbourne/BurwoodAustralia
  4. 4.Institute for Work & HealthTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations