Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Work Disability pp 409–423Cite as

Return to Work Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Work Disability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The chapter will begin with a brief presentation of who the RTW stakeholders are, with reference to why they are conceptualized as stakeholders. We will then move to a discussion of the various burdens of work disability as they relate to each of the stakeholder groups. This will be followed by a review of the literature relevant to identifying stakeholder priorities. Priorities will then be compared and contrasted, and discussion will be made of ways to move forward in the quest to reduce the burden of work disability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amick, B. C., III, et al. (2000). Measuring the impact of organizational behaviors on work disability prevention and management. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 10, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amir, Z., et al. (2010). Return to work after cancer in the UK: Attitudes and experiences of line managers. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 435–442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anema, J. R., et al. (2002). Ineffective disability management by doctors is an obstacle for return-to-work: A cohort study on low back pain patients sicklisted for 3-4 months. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(11), 729–733.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bickenbach, J. (2001). Disability human rights, law and policy. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 565–584). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Black, C. (2008). Working for a healthier tomorrow: Dame Carol Black’s review of the health of Britain’s working age population. Norwich: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, F., & Prins, R. (Eds.). (2001). Who returns to work and why?: A six country study of work incapacity and reintegration. International Social Security Series. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briand, C., et al. (2008). How well do return-to-work interventions for musculoskeletal conditions address the multicausality of work disability? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(2), 207–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, A. M., & Buchbinder, R. (2009). Back pain: A national health priority area in Australia? The Medical Journal of Australia, 190(9), 499–502.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooker, A. S., et al. (2000). Effective disability management and return-to-work practices: What we can learn from low back pain. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruckman, R. Z., & Harris, J. S. (1998). Occupational medicine practice guidelines. Occupational Medicine, 13(4), 679–691.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buchbinder, R. (2008). Self-management education en masse: Effectiveness of the back pain: Don’t take it lying down mass media campaign. The Medical Journal of Australia, 189(10 Suppl), S29–S32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buchbinder, R., & Jolley, D. (2004). Population based intervention to change back pain beliefs: Three year follow up population survey. British Medical Journal, 328(7435), 321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J. (2004). A primer on workers’ compensation. Workers’ Compensation Policy Review, 4, 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, W. N., et al. (1999). The role of health risk factors and disease on worker productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 41(10), 863–877.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cater, B. (2000). Employment, wage, and accommodation patterns of permanently injured workers. Journal of Labor Economics, 18, 74–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cifu, D. X., et al. (1999). Age, outcome, and rehabilitation costs after tetraplegia spinal cord injury. NeuroRehabilitation, 12, 177–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cott, C. A. (2004). Client-centred rehabilitation: Client perspectives. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(24), 1411–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers-Sanchez, P. M., et al. (2011). What promotes sustained return to work of employees on long-term sick leave? Perspectives of vocational rehabilitation professionals. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 37(6), 481–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Work and Pensions. (2002). Pathways to work: Helping people into employment. London: Department of Work and Pensions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deyo, R. A., & Diehl, A. K. (1986). Patient satisfaction with medical care for low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 11(1), 28–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, R. (2001). Welfare states and disabled people. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 412–429). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, R. E., et al. (2004). Three-year outcomes of long-term patients with co-occurring bipolar and substance use disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 56(10), 749–756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eijkemans, G. J., & Takala, J. (2005). Moving knowledge of global burden into preventive action. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 48(6), 395–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. (2003). Perception differences between groups of employees identifying the factors that influence a return to work after a work-related musculoskeletal injury. Work, 21, 211–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R. L., & Krause, N. (2002). Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: Conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 12(4), 233–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R. L., et al. (2005). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: Optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 525–542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J., et al. (1996). Disability resulting from occupational low back pain. Part II: What do we know about secondary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention after disability begins. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 21(24), 2918–2929.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J., et al. (1998). Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain. New evidence gives new hope–if we can just get all the players onside. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 158(12), 1625–1631.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton-Kehoe, D., et al. (2000). Years of productivity lost among injured workers in Washington state: Modeling disability burden in workers’ compensation. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 37(6), 656–662.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, J., et al. (2003). Stakeholder views of return to work after occupational injury. In T. Sullivan & J. Frank (Eds.), Preventing and managing disability at work (pp. 87–100). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, J., et al. (2007). Key factors in back disability prevention: What influences the choice of priorities? Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 32(9), E281–E289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, H., Barth, P., & Leahy, M. (1996). The workers’ compensation system of British Columbia: Still in transition. Upjohn Institute Technical Report No 95-008. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, H., et al. (1993). Disability prevention among Michigan employers, 1988-1993. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, K. (2001). Employment and reconstruction of the self: A model of space for maintenance of identify of occupation. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 8, 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, B., et al. (2003). Predictors of success for state vocational rehabilitation clients with traumatic brain injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84(2), 161–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keogh, J. P., et al. (2000). The impact of occupational injury on injured worker and family: Outcomes of upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders in Maryland workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 38(5), 498–506.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, B., & McKee, P. (2003). The needs and experiences of injured workers: A participatory research study. Work, 21(3), 221–231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, N., Dasinger, L. K., & Neuhauser, F. (1998). Modified work and return to work: A review of the literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 8(2), 113–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyes, K. B., Wickizer, T. M., & Franklin, G. (2003). Employer satisfaction with workers’ compensation health care: Results of the Washington State Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Pilot. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45(3), 234–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A., & Gard, G. (2003). How can the rehabilitation planning process at the workplace be improved? A qualitative study from employers’ perspective. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13(3), 169–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, D. J., et al. (2000). A national survey of health-related work limitations among employed persons in the United States. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22(5), 225–232.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, D., et al. (2001). The work limitations questionnaire. Medical Care, 39(1), 72–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leyshon, R. (2010). A stakeholder generated conceptualization for successful return to work outcome evaluation: A concept mapping approach. London, ON: The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, The University of Western Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loisel, P. (2005). Intervention for return to work–what is really effective? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 31(4), 245–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loisel, P., et al. (1997). A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine, 22(24), 2911–2918.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maiwald, K., et al. (2010). Evaluation of a workplace disability prevention intervention in Canada: Examining differing perceptions of stakeholders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malec, J. F., et al. (2000). A medical/vocational case coordination system for persons with brain injury: An evaluation of employment outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(8), 1007–1015.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Margoshes, B., & Webster, B. (2000). Why do occupational injuries have different health outcomes? In T. Mayer, R. Gatchel, & P. Polatin (Eds.), Occupational musculoskeletal disorders: Function, outcomes, and evidence. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMordie, W. R., Barker, S. L., & Paolo, T. M. (1990). Return to work (RTW) after head injury. Brain Injury, 4(1), 57–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mittag, O., et al. (2001). Return to work after myocardial infarction/coronary artery bypass grafting: Patients’ and physicians’ initial viewpoints and outcome 12 months later. Social Science & Medicine, 52(9), 1441–1450.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans, K., Donceel, P., & Lahaye, D. (2006a). Disability management through positive intervention in stakeholders’ information asymmetry. A pilot study. Occupational Medicine (Lond), 56(2), 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans, A. K., et al. (2006b). Does enhanced information exchange between social insurance physicians and occupational physicians improve patient work resumption? A controlled intervention study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(7), 495–502.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, V., et al. (2007). Worker satisfaction with a workplace injury prevention and return-to-work program in a large Canadian hospital: The importance of an integrated approach. Work, 28(2), 175–181.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Power, P., & Hensherson, D. (2001). Assessment of career development and maturity. In B. Bolton (Ed.), Handbook of measurement and evaluation in rehabilitation (pp. 339–363). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pransky, G., Wasiak, R., & Himmelstein, J. (2001). Disability systems: The physician’s role. Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 1, 829–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pransky, G., et al. (2000). Outcomes in work-related upper extremity and low back injuries: Results of a retrospective study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 37(4), 400–409.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pransky, G., et al. (2002). Improving the physician role in evaluating work ability and managing disability: A survey of primary care practitioners. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(16), 867–874.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pransky, G., et al. (2005). Improving return to work research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 453–457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rainville, J., et al. (2005). The physician as disability advisor for patients with musculoskeletal complaints. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 30(22), 2579–2584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C. A., Wagner, S. L., & Harder, H. G. (2006). Physician-stakeholder collaboration in disability management: A Canadian perspective on guidelines and expectations. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28(15), 955–963.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. P., et al. (1997). Industrial rehabilitation medicine. 1. Why is industrial rehabilitation medicine unique? Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78(3 Suppl), S3–S9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, S., & Roessler, R. (2001). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, L., et al. (2002). What do injured workers think about their medical care and outcomes after work injury? Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44(5), 425–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schriner, K. (2001). A disability studies perspective on employment issues and policies for disabled people: An international view. In K. Seelman, G. Albrecht, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 642–662). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schuring, M., et al. (2011). The effect of re-employment on perceived health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65(7), 639–644.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. S., & Feuerstein, M. (2004). Generating workplace accommodations: Lessons learned from the integrated case management study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 14(3), 207–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. S., et al. (2001). Case management services for work related upper extremity disorders. Integrating workplace accommodation and problem solving. AAOHN Journal, 49(8), 378–389.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. S., et al. (2003). Employee perspectives on the role of supervisors to prevent workplace disability after injuries. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 13(3), 129–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shilts, J., & Managhan, J. (2003). WCD’s injured worker survey. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Workers’ Compensation Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, J. (1999). Improving return-to-work strategies in the United States disability programs, with analysis of program practices in Germany and Sweden. Social Security Bulletin, 62(3), 41–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soklaridis, S., et al. (2011). “Can you go back to work?”: Family physicians’ experiences with assessing patients’ functional ability to return to work. Canadian Family Physician, 57(2), 202–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strunin, L., & Boden, L. I. (2004a). The workers’ compensation system: Worker friend or foe? American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45(4), 338–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strunin, L., & Boden, L. I. (2004b). Family consequences of chronic back pain. Social Science & Medicine, 58(7), 1385–1393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sum, J., & Frank, J. (2001). Return-to-work in California: Listening to stakeholders’ voices. Berkeley: Commission on Health & Safety and Workers’ Compensation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, E., et al. (2003). Work and disability. In E. Szymanski & R. Parker (Eds.), Work and disability: Basic constructs (pp. 1–26). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, T. (2003). Economic incentives and workplace safety. In T. J. Sullivan & J. W. Frank (Eds.), Preventing and managing disabling injury at work (pp. 183–204). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thulesius, H. O., & Grahn, B. E. (2007). Reincentivizing–a new theory of work and work absence. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uegaki, K., et al. (2007). Consensus-based findings and recommendations for estimating the costs of health-related productivity loss from a company’s perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 33(2), 122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oostrom, S. H., et al. (2009). Workplace interventions for preventing work disability. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), CD006955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddell, G., Aylward, M., & Sawney, P. (2002). Back pain, incapacity for work and social security benefits: An international literature review and analysis. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddell, G., & Burton, K. (2006). Is work good for your health and well-being? Great Britain: Department for Work and Pensions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasiak, R., et al. (2004). Risk factors for recurrent episodes of care and work disability: Case of low back pain. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46(1), 68–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westmorland, M., & Williams, R. (2002). Employers and policy makers can make a difference to the employment of persons with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(15), 802–809.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Westmorland, M., et al. (2002). Perspectives on work (re)entry for persons with disabilities: Implications for clinicians. Work, 18(1), 29–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wickizer, T. M., et al. (2001). Improving the quality of workers’ compensation health care delivery: The Washington State Occupational Health Services Project. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(1), 5–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wickizer, T. M., et al. (2004). Patient satisfaction, treatment experience, and disability outcomes in a population-based cohort of injured workers in Washington state: Implications for quality improvement. Health Services Research, 39(4 Pt 1), 727–748.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. M., & Westmorland, M. (2002). Perspectives on workplace disability management: A review of the literature. Work, 19(1), 87–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Workplace Health Safety and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick. (2001). Report to stakeholders: Working hard and working together. New Brunswick: Workplace Health, Safety, and Compensation Commission of New Brunswick.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health. WHO/EIP/GPE/CAS/01.3. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yassi, A. (2005). Health promotion in the workplace–the merging of the paradigms. Methods of Information in Medicine, 44(2), 278–284.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yassi, A., et al. (1990). Evaluating medical performance in the diagnosis and treatment of occupational health problems: A standardized patient approach. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32(7), 582–585.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ydreborg, B., Ekberg, K., & Nilsson, K. (2007). Swedish social insurance officers’ experiences of difficulties in assessing applications for disability pensions–an interview study. BMC Public Health, 7, 128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. E., et al. (2005). Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: Stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 543–556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This chapter reproduces, in part, material published in the article: “Return-to-Work Outcomes Following Work Disability: Stakeholder Motivations, Interests and Concerns” (Young et al. 2005). As such, I take this opportunity to acknowledge my earlier coauthors and thank them for their contribution to this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Disability Research, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA, 01748, USA

    Amanda E. Young Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Amanda E. Young Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda E. Young Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, College Street 155, Toronto, M5T 3M7, Ontario, Canada

    Patrick Loisel

  2. EMGO Institute for Health and Care Resea, Department of Public and Occupational He, VU University Medical Center, AMC-UMCG-UWV-VUmc, Amsterdam, NL-1081 BT, Netherlands

    Johannes R. Anema

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Young, A.E. (2013). Return to Work Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Work Disability. In: Loisel, P., Anema, J. (eds) Handbook of Work Disability. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6214-9_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6214-9_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6213-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6214-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation