Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current Conceptual Models of Return to Work

  • Chapter
Book cover Handbook of Return to Work

Part of the book series: Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability ((SHHDW,volume 1))

Abstract

A critical literature review examining conceptual models of return to work (RTW) from a cross-diagnostic perspective was completed. We examined first the historical underpinnings of biomedical, social construction, and the biopsychosocial paradigms that form the foundation of RTW model development. The emerging five key perspectives are then discussed: (1) biomedical and forensic, (2) psychosocial, (3), ecological/case management and economic, (4) ergonomic, and (5) biopsychosocial. Our chapter next moves into analyzing current research on three progressive RTW models that align with key RTW model features (Schultz et al., J Occup Rehabil, 17: 327–352, 2007). Namely, we reviewed the Institute of Medicine model (NRC and IOM, 2001; http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10032), the World Health Organization’s International Classification Functioning, Disability, and the Health Model of Disability (WHO ICF; 2001), and Faucett’s (Theor Issues Ergon Sci 6: 531–550, 2005) model. Research challenges and practical applications are discussed, and a concluding statement on the future of RTW models is proposed, highlighting the need for models that support key stakeholders, further operationalization of definitions and processes, and a multi- and interdisciplinary focus. This chapter builds on the article prepared by Knauf and colleagues (2014).

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

Access this chapter

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 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association (APA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anema, J. R., Cuelenaere, B., van der Beek, A. J., Knol, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & van Mechelen, W. (2004). The effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on return-to-work after low back pain: A prospective 2-year cohort study in 6 countries on low back pain patients sick-listed 3-4 months. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61, 289–294.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anema, J. R., Steenstra, I. A., Bongers, P. M., de Vet, H. C. W., Knol, D. L., Loisel, P., et al. (2007). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain: Graded activity or workplace intervention or both? A randomized controlled trial. Spine, 32(2), 291–298.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anema, J. R., Steenstra, I. A., Urlings, I. J. M., Bongers, P. M., de Vroome, E. M. M., & van Mechelen, W. (2003). Participatory ergonomics as a return-to-work intervention: A future challenge? American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 44, 273–281.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Avila, C. C., Cabello, M., Cieza, A., Vieta, E., & Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. (2010). Functioning and disability in bipolar disorders: A systematic review of literature using the ICF as a reference. Bipolar Disorder, 12(5), 473–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, M. L., & Johnson, W. G. (1995). Labor market discrimination against women with disabilities. Industrial Relations, 34(4), 555–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, M. L., Johnson, W. G., & Butler, R. J. (1996). The error of using returns-to-work to measure the outcomes of health care. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 632–641.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). The social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baril, R., & Berthelette, D. (2000). Les composantes et les déterminants organisationnels des interventions de maintien du lien d’emploi en enterprise (Rapport No. R-238). Montréal, Canada: Institut de Eecherche en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail du Québec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernacki, E. J., & Tsai, S. P. (2003). Ten years’ experience using workers’ compensation case management system to control workers’ compensation costs. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45(5), 508–519.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., & Ustin, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1173–1187.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (1975). On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 5, 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (1977). Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy and Science, 44, 542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, H. (1973). The systems view of man: Implications for medicine, science, and ethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 17(1), 71–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, A. K., Tilloston, K. M., Main, C. J., & Hollis, S. (1995). Psychosocial predictors of outcome in acute and subchronic low back trouble. Spine, 20, 722–728.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, A. K., Waddell, G., & Main, C. J. (2006). Beliefs and obstacles to recovery in low back pain. In P. Halligan & M. Aylward (Eds.), The power of belief: Psychosocial influences on illness, disability, and medicine (pp. 11–26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. J., Johnson, W. G., & Baldwin, M. L. (1995). Managing work disability: Why first return to work is not a measure of success. Industrial Labour Relations Review, 48(3), 452–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocchiarella, L., & Andersson, G. B. J. (Eds.). (2000). Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (5th ed.). Chicago, IL: American Medical Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocchiarella, L., Turk, M. A., & Andersson, G. (2000). Improving the evaluation of permanent impairment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 532–533.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. C., Mondloch, M. V., & Group EPM. (2002). Listening to workers: How recovery expectations predict outcomes. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 166, 749–54.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Comer, J. S., Olfson, M., & Mojtabai, R. (2010). National trends in children and adolescent psychotropic polypharmacy in office-based practice, 1996-2007. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(10), 1001–1010.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chirikos, T., & Nestel, G. (1984). Economic determinants and consequences of self-reported work disability. Journal of Health Economics, 117–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, T. (2002). International classification of functioning, disability and health: An introduction and discussion of its potential impact on rehabilitation services and research. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34, 201–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dasinger, L. K., Krause, N., Thompson, P. J., Brand, R. J., & Rudolph, L. (2001). Doctor proactive communication, return to work recommendation, and duration of disability after a workers’ compensation low back injury. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 6, 515–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, A. M., & Vink, P. (2000). The adoption of technological innovations for glaziers; evaluation of a participatory ergonomics approach. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26, 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePoy, E., & Gilson, S. F. (2004). Rethinking disability: Principles for professional and social change. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droeze, E., & Johnson, H. (2005). Evaluation of ergonomic interventions to reduce musculoskeletal disorders of dentists in the Netherlands. Work, 25, 211–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Escorpizo, R., Ekholm, J., Gmuender, H. P., Cieza, A., Kostanjsek, N., & Stucki, G. (2010). Developing a core set to describe functioning in vocational rehabilitation using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 502–511.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Escorpizo, R., Finger, M. E., & Reneman, M. F. (2015). Integration and application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in return to work. In I. Z. Schultz & R. J. Gatchel (Eds.), Handbook of return to work: From research to practice. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escorpizo, R., Finger, M. E., Glassel, A., Gradinger, F., Luckenkemper, M., & Cieza, A. (2011a). A systematic review of functioning in vocational rehabilitation using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 134–146.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Escorpizo, R., Reneman, M. F., Ekholm, J., Fritz, J., Krupa, T., Marnetoft, S. U., et al. (2011b). A conceptual definition of vocational rehabilitation based on the ICF: Building a shared global model. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 126–133.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Faucett, J. (2005). Integrating ‘psychosocial’ factors into a theoretical model for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 6(6), 531–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuerstein, M. (1991). A multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, evaluation, and management of work disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 1(1), 5–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feuerstein, M., & Zastowny, T. (1996). Occupational rehabilitation: Multidisciplinary management of work-related musculoskeletal pain and disability. In D. C. Turk & R. J. Gatchel (Eds.), Psychological approaches to pain management: A practitioner’s handbook (2nd ed., pp. 458–485). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1988). Disability beyond stigma: Social interaction, discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R., Baril, R., Shaw, W. S., Nicholas, M., & Loisel, P. (2005). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: Optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 525–542.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franche, R. L., Corbière, M., Lee, H., Breslin, F. C., & Hepburn, C. G. (2007). The readiness of return to work (RRTW) scale: Development and validation of a self-report scale in lost-time claimants in musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17(3), 450–472.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friesen, M., Yassi, A., & Cooper, J. (2001). Return to work: The importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work, 17(1), 11–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gatchel, R. J. (1996). Psychological disorders and chronic pain: Cause and effect relationships. In D. C. Turk & R. J. Gatchel (Eds.), Psychological approaches to pain management: A practitioner’s handbook (2nd ed., pp. 33–52). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habeck, R., Hunt, H. A., & van Tol, B. (1998). Workplace factors associated with preventing and managing work disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42, 98–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Bieling, P. (2001). File review consultation in the adjudication of mental health and chronic pain disability claims. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52(1), 53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldorsen, E., Indahl, A., & Ursin, H. (1998). Patients with low back pain not returning to work: A 12-month follow up study. Spine, 23, 1202–1208.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halligan, P. W. (2006). Beliefs: Shaping experience and understanding illness. In P. Halligan & M. Aylward (Eds.), The power of belief: Psychosocial influences on illness, disability, and medicine (pp. 11–26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, C. A., & Dawson, K. D. (1997). Design and implementations of a participatory ergonomics program for machine sewing tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 429–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, R. (2002). Targeting ergonomics interventions – learning from health promotion. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 241–249.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick, H. (2003). Determining the cost-benefits of ergonomics projects and factors that lead to their success. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 419–427.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, D., Zuberbier, O. A., Kozlowski, A., Berkowitz, J., Schultz, I. Z., Milner, R. A., et al. (2002). Are components of a comprehensive medical assessment predictive of work disability following an episode of occupational low back trouble? Spine, 27(23), 2715–2719.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Imrie, R. (2004). Demystifying disability: A review of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26, 287–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Ergonomics Association (IEA). (n.d.). The definition of ergonomics. Retrieved from IEA website: http://www.iea.cc/index.php.

  • Jensen, M. P., Romano, J. M., Turner, J. A., Good, A. B., & Wald, L. H. (1999). Patient beliefs predict patient functioning: Further support for a cognitive-behavioural model of chronic pain. Pain, 81, 95–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, R. (2005). The effectiveness of using two different types of anti-vibration gloves compared to bare hand condition at dampening the frequencies associated with hand-arm vibration syndrome. Work, 25, 197–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. G., & Baldwin, M. L. (1993). The Americans with Disabilities Act: Will it make a difference? Policy Studies Journal, 21(4), 775–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, M., & Field, D. (1994). Comments on the rejection of the biomedical model in sociological discourse. Medical Sociology News, 19(3), 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketola, R., Toivonen, R., Hakkanen, M., Luukkonen, R., Takal, E., & Viikari-Juntura, E. (2002). Effects of ergonomic intervention in work with video display units. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 28, 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, B., Krupa, T., Cockburn, L., & Gewurtz, R. (2010). A Canadian model of work integration for persons with mental illnesses. Disability Rehabilitation, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knauf, M. T., Schultz, I. Z., & Gatchel, R. (2014). Models of return-to-work in musculoskeletal disorders: An update. In R. J. Gatchel & I. Z. Schultz (Eds.), Handbook of musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koningsveld, E. A. P., Dul, J., van Rhijn, G. W., & Vink, P. (2005). Enhancing the impact of ergonomic interventions. Ergonomics, 48, 559–580.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, N., Dasinger, L. K., Deegan, L. J., Rudolph, L., & Brand, R. J. (2001a). Psychosocial job factors and return-to-work after compensated low back injury: A disability phase-specific analysis. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40, 374–392.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, N., Frank, J. W., Sullivan, T. J., Dasinger, L. K., & Sinclair, S. J. (2001b). Determinants of duration of disability and return to work after work-related injury and illness: Challenges for future research [Invited paper for special issue]. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40, 464–484.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, N., & Ragland, D. R. (1994). Occupational disability due to low back pain: A new interdisciplinary classification used in a phase model of disability. Spine, 19, 1011–1020.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuorinka, I., Côté, M. M., Baril, R., Geoffrion, R., Giguère, D., Dalzell, M. A., et al. (1994). Participation in workplace design with reference to low back pain: A case for the improvement of the police patrol car. Ergonomics, 37, 1131–1136.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz, G. (1991). Organic and biophysical theories of behavior. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 3, 201–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyshon, R. T., & Shaw, L. E. (2008). Using the ICF as a conceptual framework to guide ergonomic intervention in occupational rehabilitation. Work, 31, 47–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, S. (2000). A review of psychological risk factors in back and neck pain. Spine, 25, 1148–1156.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, S., Gross, D., Schultz, I., Main, C., Cote, P., Pransky, G., et al. (2005). Prognosis and the identification of workers risking disability: Research issues and directions for future research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 469–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loisel, P., Buchbinder, R., Hazard, R., Keller, R., Scheel, I., van Tulder, M., et al. (2005). Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: The challenge of implementing evidence. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 507–524.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loisel, P., Durand, M., Berthelette, D., Vézina, N., Baril, R., Gagnon, D., et al. (2001a). Disability prevention: New paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Disability Management and Health Outcomes, 9(7), 351–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loisel, P., Gosselin, L., Durand, P., Lemaire, J., Poitras, S., & Abenhaim, L. (2001b). Implementation of a participatory ergonomics program in the rehabilitation of workers suffering from subacute back pain. Applied Ergonomics, 32, 53–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, B. J., & Bowers, B. J. (2007). Understanding how disability is defined and conceptualized in the literature. In A. E. Dell Orto & P. W. Power (Eds.), The psychological and social impact of illness and disability (5th ed., pp. 11–21). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Main, C. J., & Spanswick, C. C. (2000). Pain management: An interdisciplinary approach. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill-Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masala, C., & Petretto, D. R. (2008). From disablement to enablement: Conceptual models of disability in the 20th century. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(17), 1233–1244.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, G., Frank, J., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Bombardier, C. (2000). Prognostic factors for time receiving workers’ compensation benefits in a cohort of patients with low back pain. Spine, 25(2), 147–157.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson, L. (1988). The social psychology of disability: 1948 and 1988. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcal, M. A., & Mazzoni, C. F. (1988). Ergonomics intervention for preventing low back pain in industry. Designing for human performance. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Human Factors Association of Canada. Mississauga, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCluskey, S., Burton, A., & Main, C. (2006). The implementation of occupational health guidelines principles for reducing sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders. Occupational Medicine, 56, 237–242.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mojtabai, R., & Olfson, M. (2008). National trends in psychotherapy by office-based psychiatrists. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65(8), 962–970.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mojtabai, R., & Olfson, M. (2011). Proportion of antidepressants prescribed without a psychiatric diagnosis is growing. Health Affairs, 30(8), 1434–1442.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council, Panel on Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (NRC), & Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2001). Musculoskeletal disorders and the workplace: Low back and upper extremities. Retrieved from National Academies Press website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10032.

  • Noy, D. (2002). Department of classics-Masters degree in ancient philosophy and mythology ancient medicine: Myth and practice. Retrieved from: http://www.lamp.ac.uk/ noy/Medicine1.htm.

  • Olkin, R., & Pledger, C. (2003). Can disability studies and psychology join hands? American Psychologist, 58(4), 296–304.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pergola, T., Salazar, M. K., Graham, K. Y., & Brines, J. (1999). Case management services for injured workers: Providers’ perspectives. AAOHN Journal, 47(9), 397–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. B. (2005). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): An introduction for rehabilitation psychologists. Rehabilitation Psychology, 50, 105–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. B. (2011). Psychological aspects of functioning, disability and health. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. B., & Elliott, T. R. (2008). Advances in conceptualizing and studying disability. In S. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 212–230). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. B., & Paul, H. (2009). Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) to conceptualize disability and functioning in psychological injury and law. Psychological Injury and Law, 2, 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. B. & Threats, T. (in press). The World Health Organization’s model of health: What evidence is needed? In K. Olson, R. Young, & I. Z. Schultz (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research for evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohjonen, T., Punakallio, A., & Louhevaara, V. (1998). Participatory ergonomics for reducing load and strain in home care work. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, A. M., & Tarlov, A. R. (1991). Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pransky, G., Shaw, W. S., Franche, R., & Clarke, A. (2004). Disability prevention and communication among workers, physicians, employers, and insurers: Current models and opportunities for improvement. Disability Rehabilitation, 26(11), 625–634.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change in smoking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, G. M., Dilfer, K., Bufka, L. F., Scherer, M. J., Kotzé, P., Tshivhase, M., et al. (2008). Three model curricula for teaching clinicians to use the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 927–941.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. P., Turk, D. C., & Loeser, J. D. (2004). Pain, impairment, and disability in the AMA guidelines. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 32(2), 315–326.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrom, J., & Esbjornsson, E. (1986). Return to work after rehabilitation. The significance of the patient’s own prediction. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 18, 29–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sampere, M., Gimeno, D., Serra, C., Plana, M., López, J. C., Martínez, J. M., et al. (2012). Return to work expectations of workers on long-term non-work-related sick leave. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22, 15–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z. (2008). Disentangling the disability quagmire in psychological injury: Part 1-disability and return to work: Theories, methods, and applications. Psychological Injury and Law, 1, 94–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., & Chlebak, C. M. (2014). Disability & impairment in medico-legal settings: Pain disability controversies. In R. J. Gatchel & I. Z. Schultz (Eds.), Handbook of musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., Crook, J. M., Berkowitz, J., Meloche, G. R., Milner, R., Zuberbier, O. A., et al. (2002). Biopsychosocial multivariate predictive model of occupational low back disability. Spine, 27, 2720–2725.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., Crook, J., Fraser, K., & Joy, P. W. (2000). Models of diagnosis and rehabilitation in musculoskeletal pain-related occupational disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 10, 271–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., Crook, J., Meloche, G., Berkowitz, J., Milner, R., Joy, P., et al. (2004). Psychological factors predictive of occupational low back disability: Towards development of a return to work model. Pain, 107, 77–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., & Gatchel, R. J. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of complex occupational disability claims: Early risk identification, intervention, and prevention. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., & Stewart, A. M. (2008). Disentangling the disability quagmire in psychological injury: Part 2 – evolution of disability models: conceptual, methodological and forensic practice issues. Psychological Injury and Law, 1, 103–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., Stowell, A. W., Feuerstein, M., & Gatchel, R. J. (2007a). Models of return to work for musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 17, 327–352.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, I. Z., Winter, A., Milner, R., Zuberbier, O., Krupa, T., et al. (2007). Towards best evidence-informed workplace practices for job accommodations for persons with mental health disabilities: Integration of evidence. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, W. S., Feuerstein, M., Lincoln, A. E., Miller, V. I., & Wood, P. M. (2001). Case management services for work-related upper extremity disorders: Integrating workplace accommodation and problem-solving. AAOHN Journal, 49, 378–389.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, J. F., & Ohrback, R. (2006). Objective and subjective measurement of pain: Current approaches to forensic applications. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Psychological knowledge in court: PTSD, pain, and TBI (pp. 193–214). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. F. (2001). Disability, society, and the individual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. F., & Smart, D. W. (2007). Models of disability: Implications for the counseling profession. In A. E. Dell Orto & P. W. Power (Eds.), The psychological and social impact of illness and disability (5th ed., pp. 75–100). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenstra, I. A., Ibrahim, S. A., Franche, R.-L., Johnson-Hogg, S., Shaw, W. S., & Pransky, G. S. (2010). Validation of a risk factor-based intervention strategy model using data from the readiness for return to work cohort study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 394–405.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, W. A., Ryser, L., Huber, E., Uebelhart, D., Aeschlimann, A., & Stucki, G. (2002). Use of the ICF model as a clinical problem-solving tool in physical therapy and rehabilitation medicine. Physical Therapy, 82(11), 1098–1107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A. M., Polak, E., Young, R., & Schultz, I. Z. (2012). Injured workers’ construction of expectations of return to work with sub-acute back pain: The role of perceived uncertainty. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22, 1–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, A. W., & McGeary, D. D. (2005). Musculoskeletal injury: A three-stage continuum from cause to disability to decision. In I. Z. Schultz & R. J. Gatchel (Eds.), Handbook of complex occupational disability claims: Early risk, identification, intervention, and prevention (pp. 117–139). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, M. J. L., Feuerstein, M., Gatchel, R. J., Linton, S. J., & Pransky, G. (2005). Integrating psychosocial and behavioral interventions to achieve optimal rehabilitation outcomes. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15(4), 475–489.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, D. G., & Pledger, C. (2003). An integrative conceptual framework of disability: New directions for research. American Psychologist, 58(4), 289–295.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tjulin, Å., MacEachen, E., & Ekberg, K. (2010). Exploring workplace actors experiences of the organization of return-to-work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20, 311–321.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, J. H., Salazar, M. K., Graham, K. Y., & Brines, J. (1999). Case management for injured workers: A descriptive study using a record review. AAOHN Journal, 47(9), 405–415.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turk, D. C. (1996). Biopsychosocial perspective on chronic pain. In R. J. Gatchel & D. C. Turk (Eds.), Psychological approaches to pain management (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turk, D. C., & Gatchel, R. J. (2000). Psychosocial assessment of chronic occupational musculoskeletal disorders. In T. M. Mayer, R. J. Gatchel, & P. B. Polatin (Eds.), Occupational musculoskeletal disorders: Function, outcomes & evidence (pp. 587–608). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turk, D. C., & Monarch, E. S. (2002). Biopsychosocial perspective on chronic pain. In D. C. Turk & R. J. Gatchel (Eds.), Psychological approaches to pain management: A practitioner’s handbook (2nd ed., pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J., Franklin, G., Fulton-Kehoe, D., Sheppard, L., Wickizer, T., Wu, R., et al. (2006). Worker recovery expectations and fear-avoidance predict work disability in a population-based workers’ compensation back pain sample. Spine, 31(6), 682–689.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, 2010 (Publication USDL 11-1612). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh2_11092011.pdf.

  • Van der Ploeg, H. P., van der Beek, A. J., van der Woude, L. H., & van Mechelen, W. (2004). Physical activity for people with a disability: A conceptual model. Sports Medicine, 34(10), 639–649.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbrugge, L. M., & Jette, A. M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science and Medicine, 38, 1–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vedder, J., & Carey, E. (2005). A multi-level systems approach for the development of tools, equipment, and work processes for the construction industry. Applied Ergonomics, 36, 147–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vink, P., Peeters, M., Gründemann, R. W. M., Smulders, P. G. W., Kompier, M. A. J., & Dul, J. (1995). A participatory ergonomics approach to reduce mental and physical workload. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 389–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vink, P., Urlings, I. J. M., & van der Molen, H. F. (1997). A participatory ergonomics approach to redesign work of scaffolders. Safety Science, 26, 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddell, G., & Aylward, M. (2005). The scientific and conceptual basis of incapacity benefits. London, UK: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddell, G., & Aylward, M. (2010). Models of sickness and disability applied to common health problems. London, UK: Royal Society of Medicine Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickstrom, G., Hyytiainen, K., Laine, M., Pentti, J., & Selonen, R. (1993). A five-year intervention study to reduce low back disorders in the metal industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 12, 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. R. (1995). Solution ownership in participatory redesign: The case of a crane control room. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO).

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). (2001). ICF: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO).

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability, and health, ICF: Full report. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). (2003). The burden of musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new millennium (WHO Technical Report Series No. 919). Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_919.pdf.

  • World Health Organization (WHO). (2012). Classifications. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/.

  • Wunderlich, G., Rice, D., & Amado, N. (2002). Dynamics of disability: Measuring and monitoring disability for social security programs. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. E., Roessler, R. T., Wasiak, R., McPherson, K. M., van Poppel, M. N. M., & Anema, J. R. (2005). A developmental conceptualization of return to work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15, 557–568.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Life Science Building, Room 313, 501 Nedderman Drive, 19528, Arlington, TX, 96019, USA

    Matthew T. Knauf

  2. Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4

    Izabela Z. Schultz

Authors
  1. Matthew T. Knauf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Izabela Z. Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Izabela Z. Schultz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. and Special Education, Dept. Edu. and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Canada

    Izabela Z. Schultz

  2. Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA

    Robert J. Gatchel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Knauf, M.T., Schultz, I.Z. (2016). Current Conceptual Models of Return to Work. In: Schultz, I., Gatchel, R. (eds) Handbook of Return to Work. Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7627-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation