Advertisement

Return to Work After Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in Diverse Labour Market and Welfare State Contexts

  • Lene OdgaardEmail author
  • Ivan Harsløf
  • Peter W. Stubbs
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reviews the rates and predictors of return to work (RTW) after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Denmark, and compares RTW rates across numerous countries. While differences can be attributed to a multitude of methodological differences, including how RTW is defined and the type of data available, we argue that countries can be roughly categorized in terms of RTW performance. The comparative assessment discusses studies from Northern European countries representing social democratic (Denmark and Norway) and conservative-corporatist models (France and the Netherlands), as well as available data from a liberal welfare state overseas (USA). Complementing studies from these Global North countries, a study from Brazil is also included. The analysis reveals that RTW is lower in Denmark and Norway compared to other countries. One plausible explanation is that the welfare state institutional setting partly exempts employers from responsibilities towards job seekers with disabilities. We address the RTW challenges for severe TBI survivors in the context of inappropriate work opportunities and an increasing requirement for highly skilled workers in the labour market. Finally, we propose potential strategies for Nordic countries to improve RTW outcomes after severe TBI.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter reproduces, in part, material published in Odgaard, Johnsen, Pedersen, and Nielsen (2017a), Odgaard, Johnsen, Stubbs, et al. (2017b), and Odgaard, Pedersen, et al. (2018). As such, we acknowledge our earlier co-authors and thank them for their contributions to this work.

References

  1. Access Economics. (2009). The economic cost of spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury in Australia. Report by Access Economics for the Victorian Neurotrauma Initiative (p. 31). Canberra: Access Economics.Google Scholar
  2. Andelic, N., Hammergren, N., Bautz-Holter, E., Sveen, U., Brunborg, C., & Røe, C. (2009). Functional outcome and health-related quality of life 10 years after moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 120(1), 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annenkov, A., & Madaschi, C. (2005). Labour productivity in the Nordic EU countries: A comparative overview and explanatory factors 1980–2004. ECB occasional paper no. 39.Google Scholar
  4. Arango-Lasprilla, J. C., Ketchum, J. M., Lewis, A. N., Krch, D., Gary, K. W., & Dodd, B. A., Jr. (2011). Racial and ethnic disparities in employment outcomes for persons with traumatic brain injury: A longitudinal investigation 1–5 years after injury. PM&R: The Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation, 3(12), 1083–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berglund, T., & Madsen, P. K. (2010). Nordic labour market and welfare systems from a flexicurity perspective. In Labour market mobility in Nordic welfare states (pp. 37–60). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  6. Biering, K., Hjøllund, N. H., & Lund, T. (2013). Methods in measuring return to work: A comparison of measures of return to work following treatment of coronary heart disease. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 23(3), 400–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corrigan, J. D., Harrison-Felix, C., Bogner, J., Dijkers, M., Terrill, M. S., & Whiteneck, G. (2003). Systematic bias in traumatic brain injury outcome studies because of loss to follow-up. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(2), 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corrigan, J. D., Lineberry, L. A., Komaroff, E., Langlois, J. A., Selassie, A. W., & Wood, K. D. (2007). Employment after traumatic brain injury: Differences between men and women. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(11), 1400–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corrigan, J. D., Cuthbert, J. P., Whiteneck, G. G., Dijkers, M. P., Coronado, V., Heinemann, A. W., et al. (2012). Representativeness of the traumatic brain injury model systems national database. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 27(6), 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuthbert, J. P., Corrigan, J. D., Whiteneck, G. G., Harrison-Felix, C., Graham, J. E., Bell, J. M., & Coronado, V. G. (2012). Extension of the representativeness of the traumatic brain injury model systems national database: 2001 to 2010. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 27(6), E15–E27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dex, S., & McCulloch, A. (1998). The reliability of retrospective unemployment history data. Work, Employment and Society, 12(3), 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diaz, A. P., Schwarzbold, M. L., Thais, M. E., Cavallazzi, G. G., Schmoeller, R., Nunes, J. C., et al. (2014). Personality changes and return to work after severe traumatic brain injury: A prospective study. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 36(3), 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillahunt-Aspillaga, C., Nakase-Richardson, R., Hart, T., Powell-Cope, G., Dreer, L. E., Eapen, B. C., et al. (2017). Predictors of employment outcomes in veterans with traumatic brain injury: A VA traumatic brain injury model systems study. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 32(4), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doctor, J. N., Castro, J., Temkin, N. R., Fraser, R. T., Machamer, J. E., & Dikmen, S. S. (2005). Workers’ risk of unemployment after traumatic brain injury: A normed comparison. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11(6), 747–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donker-Cools, B. H. P. M., Daams, J. G., Wind, H., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2015). Effective return-to-work interventions after acquired brain injury: A systematic review. Brain Injury, 30(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
  16. Engelstad, F. (1999). Demokrati og makt – samfunn og bedrift [Democracy and power – Society and enterprise]. In Ø. Østerud (Ed.), Mot en ny maktutredning [Towards a new investigation of power in Norway] (pp. 19–42). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  17. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grauwmeijer, E., Heijenbrok-Kal, M. H., Haitsma, I. K., & Ribbers, G. M. (2012). A prospective study on employment outcome 3 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(6), 993–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grauwmeijer, E., Heijenbrok-Kal, M. H., Haitsma, I. K., & Ribbers, G. M. (2017). Employment outcome ten years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: A prospective cohort study. Journal of Neurotrauma, 34(17), 2575–2581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griep, Y., Kinnunen, U., Nätti, J., De Cuyper, N., Mauno, S., Mäkikangas, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). The effects of unemployment and perceived job insecurity: A comparison of their association with psychological and somatic complaints, self-rated health and life satisfaction. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 89(1), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hankemeier, A., & Rollnik, J. D. (2015). The Early Functional Abilities (EFA) scale to assess neurological and neurosurgical early rehabilitation patients. BMC Neurology, 15(1), 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harsløf, I., Scarpa, S., & Andersen, S. N. (2013). Changing population profiles and social risk structures in the Nordic countries. In I. Harsløf & R. Ulmestig (Eds.), Changing social risks and social policy responses in the Nordic welfare states (pp. 25–49). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hjollund, N. H., Larsen, F. B., & Andersen, J. H. (2007). Register-based follow-up of social benefits and other transfer payments: Accuracy and degree of completeness in a Danish interdepartmental administrative database compared with a population-based survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 35(5), 497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. International Labour Organization. (2016). Key indicators of the Labour market: Unemployment rate. https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/. Accessed 1 July 2018.
  25. Jourdan, C., Bosserelle, V., Azerad, S., Ghout, I., Bayen, E., Aegerter, P., et al. (2013). Predictive factors for 1-year outcome of a cohort of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI): Results from the PariS-TBI study. Brain Injury, 27(9), 1000–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jourdan, C., Bayen, E., Bahrami, S., Ghout, I., Darnoux, E., Azerad, S., et al. (2016). Loss to follow-up and social background in an inception cohort of patients with severe traumatic brain injury: Results from the PariS-TBI study. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 31, E42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ketchum, J. M., Almaz Getachew, M., Krch, D., Banos, J. H., Kolakowsky-Hayner, S. A., Lequerica, A., et al. (2012). Early predictors of employment outcomes 1 year post traumatic brain injury in a population of Hispanic individuals. NeuroRehabilitation, 30(1), 13–22.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Children, Gender Equality, Integration and Social Affairs. (2014). Social security. http://sm.dk/en/responsibilites/social-security. Accessed 15 June 2015.
  29. Odgaard, L., Poulsen, I., Kammersgaard, L. P., Johnsen, S. P., & Nielsen, J. F. (2015). Surviving severe traumatic brain injury in Denmark: Incidence and predictors of highly specialized rehabilitation. Clinical Epidemiology, 7, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Odgaard, L., Johnsen, S. P., Pedersen, A. R., & Nielsen, J. F. (2017a). Return to work after severe traumatic brain injury: A nationwide follow-up study. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 32(3), E57–E64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Odgaard, L., Johnsen, S. P., Stubbs, P. W., Pedersen, A. R., & Nielsen, J. F. (2017b). Alternative measures reveal different but low estimates of labour market attachment after severe traumatic brain injury: A nationwide cohort study. Brain Injury, 31(10), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Odgaard, L., Pedersen, A. R., Poulsen, I., Johnsen, S. P., & Nielsen, J. F. (2018). Return to work predictors after traumatic brain injury in a welfare state. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 137(1), 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD. (2006). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers: Norway, Poland and Switzerland (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD Publishing. Tables available at: https://www.oecd.org/norway/sicknessdisabilityandworkvol1norwaypolandandswitzerland.htm
  34. OECD. (2008). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers: Denmark, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands (Vol. 3). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264049826-en.
  35. OECD. (2010a). Executive summary and policy conclusions. In Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers: A synthesis of Findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088856-en.
  36. OECD. (2010b). Insufficient labour market integration of people with disability. In Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers: A synthesis of finding across OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088856-en.
  37. OECD. (2010c). Sickness, disability and work: Improving social and labour-market integration of people with disability. Fact sheet based on Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/46488022.pdf
  38. Ponsford, J. L., Downing, M. G., Olver, J., Ponsford, M., Acher, R., Carty, M., & Spitz, G. (2014). Longitudinal follow-up of patients with traumatic brain injury: Outcome at two, five, and ten years post-injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 31(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sherer, M., Madison, C. F., & Hannay, H. J. (2000). A review of outcome after moderate and severe closed head injury with an introduction to life care planning. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 15(2), 767–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tillin, L., & Pereira, A. W. (2017). Federalism, multi-level elections and social policy in Brazil and India. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 55(3), 328–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tschanz, C., & Staub, I. (2017). Disability-policy models in European welfare regimes: Comparing the distribution of social protection, labour-market integration and civil rights. Disability & Society, 32(8), 1199–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Voorhis, R. A. (2002). Different types of welfare states? A methodological deconstruction of comparative research. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 29, 3.Google Scholar
  43. Wilthagen, T., & Tros, F. (2004). The concept of ‘flexicurity’: A new approach to regulating employment and labour markets. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 10(2), 166–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Young, A. E., Wasiak, R., Roessler, R. T., McPherson, K. M., Anema, J. R., & van Poppel, M. N. (2005). Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: Stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 543–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hammel Neurorehabilitation and Research CenterAarhus UniversityHammelDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Social Work, Child Welfare and Social PolicyOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway
  3. 3.Graduate School of Health, Discipline of PhysiotherapyUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations