Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Workplace-Based Return-to-Work Interventions: Optimizing the Role of Stakeholders in Implementation and Research

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: The challenges of engaging and involving stakeholders in return-to-work (RTW) intervention and research have not been well documented. Methods: This article contrasts the diverse paradigms of workers, employers, insurers, labor representatives, and healthcare providers when implementing and studying workplace-based RTW interventions. Results: Analysis of RTW stakeholder interests suggests that friction is inevitable; however, it is possible to encourage stakeholders to tolerate paradigm dissonance while engaging in collaborative problem solving to meet common goals. We review how specific aspects of RTW interventions can be instrumental in resolving conflicts arising from differing paradigms: calibration of stakeholders' involvement, the role of supervisors and of insurance case managers, and procedural aspects of RTW interventions. The role of the researcher in engaging stakeholders, and ethical aspects associated with that process are discussed. Conclusions: Recommendations for future research include developing methods for engaging stakeholders, determining the optimal level and timing of stakeholder involvement, expanding RTW research to more diverse work settings, and developing RTW interventions reflecting all stakeholders' interests.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. World Health Organization, 2001.

  3. Feuerstein M, Huang GD, Ortiz JM, Shaw WS, Miller VI, Wood PM. Integrated case management for work-related upper-extremity disorders: Impact of patient satisfaction on health and work status. J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45(8): 803–812.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lincoln A, Feuerstein M, Shaw WS, Miller VI, Wood PM. Impact of case management training on worksite accommodations in workers' compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders. J Occup Environ Med 2002; 44: 237–245.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shaw WS, Feuerstein M, Lincoln AE, Miller VI, Wood PM. Case management services for work related upper extremity disorders. Integrating workplace accommodation and problem solving. AAOHN J 2001; 49(8): 378–389.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wood DJ. Design and evaluation of a back injury prevention program within a geriatric hospital. Spine 1987; 12(2): 77–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wickizer TM, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Turner JA, Mootz R, Smith-Weller T. Patient satisfaction, treatment experience, and disability outcomes in a population-based cohort of injured workers in Washington State: Implications for quality improvement. Health Serv Res 2004; 39(4 Pt 1): 727–748.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loisel P. Intervention for return to work: What is really effective? [Editorial] Scan J Work Environ 2005; 31: 245–247.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Anema JR. Low back pain, workplace intervention and return-to-work. 2004. Amsterdam, Vrije University.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Loisel P, Abenhaim L, Durand P, Esdaile JM, Suissa S, Gosselin L, et al. A population-based, randomized clinical trial on back pain management. Spine 1997; 22: 2911–2918.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rice DP, Wunderlich GS. The dynamics of disability: Measuring and monitoring disability for social security programs. Washington: National Academies Press, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Akabas SH, Gates LB, Galvin DE. Disability management: A complete system to reduce costs, increase productivity, meet employee needs, and ensure legal compliance. New York: American Management Association, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Franche RL, Krause N. Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: Conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors. J Occup Rehabil 2002; 12: 233–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Frank J, Sinclair S, Hogg-Johnson S, Shannon H, Bombardier C, Beaton D, et al. Preventing disability from work-related low-back pain: New evidence gives new hope—if we can just get all the players onside. CMAJ 1998; 158: 1625–1631.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schultz IZ, Crook J, Fraser K, Joy PW. Models of diagnosis and rehabilitation in musculoskeletal pain-related occupational disability. J Occup Rehab 2000; 10: 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Franche R-L, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J, and the 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: 607–631.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J. Return-to-work: The importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work 2001; 17: 11–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Health Canada. Economic burden of illness in Canada, 1998. i-92. 2002. Ottawa, Health Canada.

  19. United States Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Worker Health Chartbook, 2000. U.S. Department of Health and Human services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

  20. Rowe ML. Low back pain in industry: A position paper. J Occup Med 1969; 11: 161–169.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Guzman J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ 2001; 322: 1511–1516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Van Tulder M, Roine R, Jauhiainen M, Hurri H, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain in working-age adults: A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 2001; 26: 262–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lindstrom I, Ohlund C, Eek C, Wallin L, Peterson LE, Fordyce WE, et al. The effect of graded activity on patients with subacute low back pain: A randomized prospective clinical study with an operant-conditioning behavioral approach. Phys Ther 1992; 72: 279–293.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Neuhauser F. Modified work and return to work: A review of the literature. J Occup Rehab 1998; 8: 113–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shaw WS, Feuerstein M, Haufler AJ, Berkowitz SM, Lopez MS. Working with low back pain: Problem solving orientation and function. Pain 2001; 93: 129–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis PM, Badii M, Yassi A. Preventing disability from occupational musculoskeletal injuries in an urban, acute and tertiary care hospital: Results from a prevention and early active return-to-work safely program. J Occup Environ Med 2004; 46: 1253–1262.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Baril R, Berthelette JM. Components and organizational determinants of workplace interventions designed to facilitate early return to work. Collection Etudes et Recherches, IRSST 2000; R-263:i-53.

  28. Drury D. Disability management in small firms. Rehabil Couns Bull 1991; 34: 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shoemaker RJ. Corporate resistance to early return to work policy. Western Michigan University, MI, 1989.

  30. Franche R-L, Cullen K, Clarke J, MacEachen E, Frank J, Sinclair S, and the IWH Workplace-based return-to-work intervention literature review group. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: A systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature. Report. Institute for Work & Health. Toronto, Canada. 2004.

  31. Stock S, Deguire S, Baril R, Durand M-J. Obstacles and factors facilitating return to work of workers with musculoskeletal disorders: Summary of the report on the Quebec qualitative study in the electric and electronic sector of Workready Phase 1. Montreal: Direction de la santé publique, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Keogh JP, Nuwayhid I, Gordon JL, Gucer P. The impact of occupational injury on injured worker and family: Outcomes of upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders in Maryland workers. Am J Ind Med 2000; 38: 498–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bronn PS, Bronn C. A reflective stakeholder approach: Co-orientation as a basis for communication and learning. J Commun Manage 2003; 7: 291–303.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Eakin JM, MacEachen E, Clarke J. ‘Playing it smart’ with return to work: Small workplace experience under Ontario's policy of self-reliance and early return. Policy Pract Health Saf 2003; 1: 19–41.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Harrison K, Allen S. Features of occupational rehabilitation systems in Australia: A map through the maze. Work 2003; 21: 141–152.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Brooker A-S, Cole DC, Hogg-Johnson S, Smith J, Frank JW. Modified work: Prevalence and characteristics in a sample of workers with soft-tissue injuries. J Occup Environ Med 2001; 43: 276–284.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Franche RL, Mustard C, Krause N, Hepburn G, Breslin C, Kosny A, et al. Summary of the return-to-work pilot study. Toronto, Canada: Institute for Work & Health, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Baril R, Clarke J, Friesen M, Stock S, Cole D, Bombardier C, et al. Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: A qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57(11): 2101–2114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Berthelette, D., Baril, R.: A theoretical model of the implementation of early return to work measures. Conference Proceedings. Back Pain and Disability-Unraveling the Puzzle. New York, 2000: 65– 66.

  41. Stock S, Baril R, Dion-Hubert C, Lapointe C, Paquette S, Sauvage J, et al. Work-related musculoskeletal disorder: Guide and tools for modified work. Direction de la santé publique. Agence de développement de réseaux locaux de services de santé et de services sociaux de Montréal. Québec, 2005.

  42. Johnson WG, Butler RJ, Baldwin M. First spells of work absences among Ontario workers. In: Thomason T, Chaykowski RP, eds. Research in Canadian Workers' Compensation. Kingston, Ontario: IRC Press, Queens University, 1993: 73–84.

  43. Dersh J, Polatin PB, Leeman G, Gatchel RJ. The management of secondary gain and loss in medicolegal settings: Strengths and weaknesses. J Occup Rehab 2004; 14: 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wickizer TM, Lessler D. Utilization management: Issues, effects, and future prospects. Ann Rev Pub Health 2002; 23: 233–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Atlas SJ, Deyo RA. Evaluating and managing acute low back pain in the primary care setting. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 120–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Beaumont DG. Rehabilitation and retention in the workplace—the interaction between general practitioners and occupational health professionals: A consensus statement. Occup Med 2003; 53: 254–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Guzman J, Yassi A, Cooper JE, Khokhar J. Return to work after occupational injury. Family physicians' perspectives on soft-tissue injuries. Can Fam Physician 2002; 48: 1912–1919.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Loisel P, Vachon B, Lemaire J, Durand M, Poitras S, Stock S. Discriminative and predictive validity assessment of the Quebec task force classification. Spine 2002; 27: 851–857.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. van der Weide WE, Verbeek JHAM, Salle HJA, van Dijk FJH. Prognostic factors for chronic disability from acute low-back pain in occupational health care. Scand J Work Environ Health 1999; 25: 50–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schweigert MK, McNeil D, Doupe L. Treating physicians' perceptions of barriers to return to work of their patients in southern Ontario. Occup Med 2004; 54: 425–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Shaw WS, Yueng-Hsiang H. Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy for return to work after low back pain: Development of a pilot measure from qualitative interviews. Disabil Rehabil 2005, in press.

  52. Tarasuk V, Eakin JM. The problem of legitimacy in the experience of work-related back injury. Qual Health Res 1995; 5: 204–221.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pransky G, Benjamin K, Savageau J, Currivan D, Fletcher K. Outcomes in work-related injuries: A comparison of older and younger workers. Am J Ind Med 2005; 4: 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shaw WS, Robertson MM, Pransky G, McLellan RK. Training to optimize the response of supervisors to work injuries: Needs assessment, design and evaluation. Work, 2006, in press.

  55. Shrey DE, Hursh NC. Workplace disability management: International trends and perspectives. J Occup Rehab 1999; 9: 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pransky G, Wasiak R, Himmelsetein JS. Disability systems: The physician's role. Clin Occup Environ Med 2001; 1: 829–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sinclair SJ, Hogg-Johnson SA, Mondloch MV, Shields SA. The effectiveness of an early active intervention program for workers with soft tissue injuries: The Early Claimant Cohort Study. Spine 1997; 22: 2919– 2931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Yassi A, Tate R, Cooper JE, Snow C, Vallentyne S, Khokhar JB. Early intervention for back-injured nurses at a large Canadian tertiary care hospital: An evaluation of the effectiveness and cost benefits of a two-year pilot project. Occup Med 1995; 45: 209–214.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Linton SJ, Andersson T. Can chronic disability be prevented? A randomized trial of a cognitive-behavioral intervention and two forms of information for spinal pain patients. Spine 2000; 25: 2825–2831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Staal JB, Hlobil H, Twisk JW, Smid T, Koke AJ, van Mechelen W. Graded activity for low back pain in occupational health care: A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Int Med 2004: 77–84.

  61. Steenstra I. Back pain management in Dutch occupational health care. Amsterdam, Vrije University, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Haldorsen EM, Grasdal AL, Skouen JS. Is there a right treatment for a particular patient group? Comparison of ordinary treatment, light multidisciplinary treatment, and extensive multidisciplinary treatment for long-term sick-listed employees and musculoskeletal pain. Pain 2002; 95: 49–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Marhold C, Linton SJ, Melin LA. A cognitive-behavioral return-to-work program: Effects on pain patients with a history of long-term sick leave. Pain 2001; 31: 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Anema JR, Cuelenaere B, van der Beek AJ, Knol DL, van Mechelen W. The effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on return-to-work after low back pain: A prospective two year cohort study in six countries on low back pain patients sicklisted for 3–4 months. Occup Environ Med 2004; (61): 289–294.

  65. Crook J, Moldofsky H, Shannon H. Determinants of disability after a work related musculoskeletal injury. J Rheumatol 1998; 25: 1570–1577.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Clarke A, Brown D. Step-by step disability management: Facilitator training manual. Clark, Brown, Associates Ltd., 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Frank J, Cullen K, and the Ad Hoc IWH Working Group. Preventing disability at work: What works, and how do we know? 2004. Toronto, Canada: Institute for Work & Health.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gates LB. The role of the supervisor in successful adjustment to work with a disabling condition: Issues for disability policy and practice. J Occup Rehabil 1993; 3: 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Shaw WS, Robertson MM, Pransky G, McLellan RK. Employee perspectives on the role of supervisors to prevent workplace disability after injuries. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13: 129–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Strunin L, Boden LI. Paths of reentry: Employment experiences of injured workers. Am J Ind Med 2000; 38: 373–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Linton SJ. The manager's role in employees' return to work following back injury. Work Stress 1991; 5: 189–195.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Arnetz BB, Sjogren B, Rydehn B, Meisel R. Early workplace intervention for employees with musculoskeletal-related absenteeism: A prospective controlled intervention study. J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45: 499–506.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Bernacki EJ, Guidera JA, Schaefer JA, Tsai S. A facilitated early return to work program at a large urban medical center. J Occup Environ Health 2000; 42: 1172–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Pransky G, Shaw W, Franche RL, Clarke A. Disability prevention and communication among workers, physicians, employers, and insurers—current models and opportunities for improvement. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26(11): 625–634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Shaw WS, Feuerstein M, Miller VI, Lincoln AE. Clinical tools to facilitate workplace accommodation after treatment for an upper extremity disorder. Assist Technol 2001; 13: 94–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Stock S, Deguire S, Baril R, Durand M-J. Return-to-work: Opening the black box. PREMUS, 2001.

  77. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. Office ergonomics: Practical solutions for a safer workplace. Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Seattle, 1997.

  78. Galvin DE, Tate DG, Schwartz GE. Disability management research: Current status, needs and implications for study. J Appl Rehab Counsel 1986; 17: 43–48.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lewin K. Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science, social equilibria and social change. Hum Relat 1947; 1: 3–41.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Cunningham CE, Woodward CA, Shannon HS, MacIntosh J, Lendrum B, Rosenbloom D, et al. Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. J Occup Organ Psychol 2002; 75: 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Holt DT. Readiness for change: The development of a scale. Auburn University, U.S.A., 2002.

  82. Armenakis AA, Harris SG, Mossholder K. Creating readiness for organizational change. Hum Relat 1993; 46: 681–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Lehman WEK, Greener JM, Simpson D. Assessing organizational readiness for change. J Subst Abuse Treat 2002; 22: 197–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Haslam RA. Targeting ergonomics interventions—learning from health promotion. Appl Ergon 2002; 33: 241–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Maxfield AM, Lewis MJ, Tisdale JA, Lachenmayr S, Lum M. Effects of a preventive message in the organizational context: Occupational latex allergy in hospitals. Am J Ind Med 1999; Suppl 1: 125–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Bourdouxhe M, Gratton L. Transfert et utilisation des résultats en milieu de travail: le cas de la recherche sur les éboueurs au Québec. PISTES 2003; 5.

  87. Grol R, Jones R. Twenty years of implementation research. Family Practice 2000; 17: S32-S35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Schein EH. Process consultation revisited—Building the helping relationship. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  89. McGrail MPJr, Calasanz M, Christianson J, Cortez C, Dowd B, Gorman R, et al. The Minnesota health partnership and coordinated health care and disability prevention: The implementation of an integrated benefits and medical care model. J Occup Rehabil 2002; 12: 43–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Green-McKenzie J, Rainer S, Behrman A, Emmett E. The effect of a health care management initiative on reducing workers' compensation costs. J Occup Environ Med 2002; 44: 1100–1105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Merrill RN, Pransky G, Hathaway J, Scott D. Illness and the workplace: A study of physicians and employers. J Fam Pract 1990; 31: 55–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Kompier MA, Geurts SAE, Grundemann RWM, Vink P, Smulders PGW. Cases in stress prevention: The success of a participative and stepwise approach. Stress Med 13: 155–168.

  93. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, MacFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milkbank Q 2004; 82: 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Buchbinder R, Jolley D, Wyatt M. Population based intervention to change back pain beliefs and disability: Three part evaluation. Br Med J 2001; 322: 1516–1520.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Buchbinder R, Jolley D. Population based intervention to change back pain beliefs: Three year follow up population survey. Br Med J 2004; 328: 321.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Cole DC, Wells RP, Frazer MB, Kerr MS, Neumann WP, Laing AC, et al. Methodological issues in evaluating workplace interventions to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders through mechanical exposure reduction. Scand J Work Environ Health 2003; 29: 396–405.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Wasiak R, Pransky GS, Webster BS. Methodological challenges in studying recurrence of low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13: 21–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Loisel P, Côté P, Durand MJ, Franche R-L, Sullivan MJL and all other mentors of the program. Training the next generation of researchers in work disability prevention: The Canadian Work Disability Prevention CIHR Strategic Training Program. J Occup Rehabil 2005; 15: 273–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Contandriopoulos A-P, Champagne F, Denis J-L, Avargues M-C. L'évaluation dans le domaine de la santé: Concepts et méthodes. Revue Epidémiologique et Santé Publique 2000; 48: 517–539.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Work & Health, 481 University Avenue, Suite 800, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E9, Canada

    Renée-Louise Franche

  2. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Renée-Louise Franche

  3. Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travail, Montreal, Canada

    Raymond Baril

  4. Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, USA

    William Shaw

  5. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Michael Nicholas

  6. Université de Sherbrooke, Centre PREVICAP, Montreal, Canada

    Patrick Loisel

Authors
  1. Renée-Louise Franche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond Baril
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Nicholas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Loisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renée-Louise Franche.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Franche, RL., Baril, R., Shaw, W. et al. Workplace-Based Return-to-Work Interventions: Optimizing the Role of Stakeholders in Implementation and Research. J Occup Rehabil 15, 525–542 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8032-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-8032-1

Key Words

Search

Navigation