Differences Over Time in the Prognostic Effect of Return to Work Self-Efficacy on a Sustained Return to Work
- 18 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSelf efficacy Return to work Workers’ compensation Occupational injuries
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.
- 1.Australia SW. Key workers’ compensation information, Australia 2014. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2015.Google Scholar
- 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.Waddell GBA. Is work good for your health and well-being? London: TSO; 2006.Google Scholar
- 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.Safework Australia. Australian workers’ compensation statistics 2015–2016. Canberra: Safework Australia; 2017.Google Scholar
- 6.Australia S. The incidence of accepted workers’ compensati on claims for mental stress in Australia. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2013.Google Scholar
- 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
- 32.Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012.Google Scholar
- 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