Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 160–181 | Cite as

Interactions Between Injured Workers and Insurers in Workers’ Compensation Systems: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research Literature

  • Elizabeth Kilgour
  • Agnieszka Kosny
  • Donna McKenzie
  • Alex Collie
Review

Abstract

Introduction Work-related injury is a major public health problem and a worker’s recovery can be shaped by their interactions with employers, healthcare providers and the workers’ compensation system. Most research on the effects of compensation has concentrated on examining outcomes rather than considering the compensation process itself. There has been little attention paid to the interactions between stakeholders and only recently has the client’s view been considered as worthy of investigation. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize findings from peer reviewed qualitative studies that investigated injured workers interactions with insurers in workers’ compensation systems. Method A search of six electronic library databases revealed 1,006 articles. After screening for relevance, 18 articles were read in full and a search of those bibliographies revealed a further nine relevant articles. Quality assessment of the 27 studies resulted in a final 13 articles of medium and high quality being retained for data extraction. Results Included studies focused mainly on experiences of injured workers, many of whom had long term claims. Findings were synthesized using a meta-ethnographic approach. Six themes were identified which characterised the interactions between insurers and injured workers. The majority of interactions were negative and resulted in considerable psychosocial consequences for injured workers. Positive interactions were less frequently reported and included respectful, understanding and supportive communication and efficient service from insurers. Conclusion Findings from this synthesis support the growing consensus that involvement in compensation systems contributes to poorer outcomes for claimants. Interactions between insurers and injured workers were interwoven in cyclical and pathogenic relationships, which influence the development of secondary injury in the form of psychosocial consequences instead of fostering recovery of injured workers. This review suggests that further research is required to investigate positive interactions and identify mechanisms to better support and prevent secondary psychosocial harm to injured workers.

Keywords

Workers’ compensation Injured worker Insurer Interactions Psychosocial consequences Qualitative Systematic review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The project was funded by WorkSafe Victoria, the Transport Accident Commission and Monash University, Victoria, Australia. The authors wish to thank Dr. E MacEachen for the use of quality appraisal and data extraction proforma previously developed for a systematic review of qualitative literature on return to work.

Conflict of interest

The project No FS-M-11-029 was funded by WorkSafe Victoria and the Transport Accident Commission, (TAC) Victoria, Australia. ISCRR is a joint initiative of TAC, WorkSafe Victoria and Monash University.

Supplementary material

10926_2014_9513_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (236 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 235 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dembe AE. The social consequences of occupational injury and illnesses. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40:403–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loisel P, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, Cote P, Lemstra M, Berglund A, Nygren A. Effect of eliminating compensation for pain and suffering on the outcome of insurance claims for whiplash injury. New Engl J Med. 2000;342:1179–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spearing N, Gyrd-Hansen D, Pobereskin L, Rowell D, Connelly L. Are people who claim compensation “cured by a verdict”? A longitudinal study of health outcomes after whiplash. J Law Med. 2012;20:82–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turner J, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Sheppard L, Thomas M, Rae Wu W, Gluck J, Egan K, Stover B. Early predictors of chronic work disability associated with carpal tunnel syndrome: a longitudinal workers’ compensation cohort study. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50:489–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weiler SW, Foeh KP, van Mark A, Touissant R, Sonntag N, Gaessler A, Schulze J, Kessel R. Outpatient rehabilitation of workers with musculoskeletal disorders using structured workplace description. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009;82:427–34.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cole D, Mondloch M, Hogg-Johnson S, for the Early Claimant Cohort Prognostic Modelling Group. Institute for Work, Health. Listening to injured workers: how recovery expectations predict outcomes—a prospective study. Can Med Assoc. 2002;166(6):749–54.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris I, Murgatroyd D, Cameron I, Young J, Solomon M. The effect of compensation on health care utilisation in a trauma cohort. Med Journal Aust. 2009;190(11):619–22.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. The Institute for Work and Health (IWH) Workplace-Based RTW Intervention Literature Review Research Team. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:607–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris I, Mulford J, Solomon M, van Gelder JM, Young J. Association between compensation status and outcome after surgery: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;293(13):1644–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. London: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grant G, Studdert D. Poisoned chalice? A critical analysis of the evidence linking personal injury compensation processes with adverse health outcomes. Melb Uni Law Rev. 2009;33(3):865–85.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lippel K. Preserving workers’ dignity in workers’ compensation systems: an international perspective. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55(6):519–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akkermans A. Reforming personal injury claims settlement: Paying more attention to emotional dimension promotes victim recovery. 2009; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1333214. Accessed 1 Oct 2012.
  16. 16.
    Sager L, James C. Injured workers perspectives of their rehabilitation process under the New South Wales workers compensation system. Aust Occup Ther J. 2005;52:127–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calzoni T. The client perspective: the missing link in work injury and rehabilitation studies. J Occup Health Saf Aust NZ. 1997;13(1):47–57.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bye R. When clients are dying: occupational therapists’ perspectives. Occup Ther J Res. 1998;18(1):3–24.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKinnon A. Client values and satisfaction with Occupational Therapy. Scand J Occup Ther. 2000;7:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boynton T, Darragh A. Participatory ergonomics intervention in a sterile processing center; a case study. Work. 2008;31:95–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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(4):257–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. London: Cabinet Office; 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noblit G, Hare R. Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. California: Sage Publications; 1998.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beardwood B, Kirsh B, Clark N. Victims twice over: perceptions and experiences of injured workers. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(1):30–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cacciacarro L, Kirsh B. Exploring the mental health needs of injured workers. Can J Occup Ther. 2006;73(3):178–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cromie J, Robertson V, Best M. Physical therapists who claimed workers’ compensation: a qualitative study. Phys Ther. 2003;83(12):1080–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hubertsson J, Petersson I, Arvidsson B, Thorstensson C. Sickness absence in musculoskeletal disorders—patients’ experiences of interactions with the Social Insurance Agency and health care. A qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2011; doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-107.
  28. 28.
    Jaye C, Fitzgerald R. The lived political economy of occupational overuse syndrome among New Zealand workers. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(7):1010–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kosny A, MacEachen E, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The role of healthcare providers in long term and complicated workers’ compensation claims. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(4):582–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lippel K. Workers describe the effect of the workers’ compensation process on their health: a Quebec study. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2007;30(4):427–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S. Unexpected barriers in return to work: lessons learned from injured worker peer support groups. Work. 2007;29(2):155–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(3):349–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murray M. Fish harvesters with injuries accounts of their experiences with the workers’ compensation system. Work. 2007;28(1):47–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reid J, Ewan C, Lowy E. Pilgrimage of pain: the illness experiences of women with repetition strain injury and the search for credibility. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(5):601–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roberts-Yates C. The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: the need for new operational frameworks. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(16):898–907.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strunin L, Boden L. The workers’ compensation system: worker friend or foe? Am J Ind Med. 2004;45(4):338–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Miller D. Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):527–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brown C, Bostick G, Lim J, Gross D. Perceived injustice in injured workers: analysis of public responses to an injured worker who took Workers’ Compensation Board employees hostage. Scand J Caring Sci. 2012;26(3):569–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hadler N. If you have to prove you are ill, you can’t get well: the object lesson of fibromyalgia. Spine. 1996;21(20):2397–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Davis MC, Ibrahim J, Ranson D, Ozanne-Smith J, Routely V. Work-related musculoskeletal injury and suicide: opportunities for intervention and therapeutic jurisprudence. J Law Med. 2013;21(1):110–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Routely V, Ozanne-Smith J, Davis MC. Suicide following work-injury in Victoria, Australia. J Health Saf Med. 2012;23(3):293.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smith M, Perlis M, Haythornthwaite J. Suicidal ideation in outpatients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. An exploratory study of the role of sleep onset insomnia and pain intensity. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(2):111–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tang N, Crane C. Suicidality in chronic pain: a review of the prevalence, risk factors and psychological links. Psychol Med. 2006;36:575–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wilson K, Kowal J, Henderson P, McWilliams L, Péloquin K. Chronic pain and the interpersonal theory of suicide. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2013;58(1):111–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dawson S. Workers’ Compensation in Pennsylvania. J Health Soc Policy. 1995;6(1):87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lippel K. Therapeutic and anti-therapeutic consequences of workers’ compensation. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1999;22(5):521–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ison T. The therapeutic significance of compensation structures. Can Bar Rev. 1986;64:605–17.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wilkinson W. Therapeutic jurisprudence and workers’ compensation. Ariz Atty. 1994;30:28–33.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shuman D. The psychology of compensation in tort law. U. Kans Law Rev. 1994;43:39–77.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Imershein A, Hill S, Reynolds A. The workers’ compensation system as a quality of life problem for workers’ compensation claimants. Adv Med Sociol. 1994;5:181–200.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Svensson T, Karlsson A, Alexanderson K, Nordqvist C. Shame-inducing encounters. Negative emotional aspects of sickness-absentees’ interactions with rehabilitation professionals. J Occup Rehabil. 2003;13(3):183–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Frank J, Sinclair S, Hogg-Johnson S, Shannon H, Bombardier C, Beaton D, Cole D. Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain—new evidence gives new hope—if we can just get all the players onside. Can Med Assoc J. 1998;158:1625–31.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schaafsma F, De Wolf A, Kayaian A, Cameron I. Changing insurance company claims handling processes improves some outcomes for people injured in road traffic crashes BMC Public Health 2012; http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/36. Accessed 9 Dec 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Kilgour
    • 1
    • 2
  • Agnieszka Kosny
    • 3
  • Donna McKenzie
    • 1
  • Alex Collie
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR)Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health ScienceMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health (MonCOEH), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive MedicineMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations