Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building a Common Language to Facilitate Discussion Among Stakeholders in Work Disability: A Consensus Group Approach

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

Abstract

Purpose

Work disability stakeholders may not share the same understanding and solutions among themselves or with researchers, causing misunderstandings and hindering collaboration regarding solutions for preventing work disability. To reduce such differences, this study sought to build a common vocabulary among stakeholders and researchers, using a transdisciplinary research framework.

Methods

A consensus method based on a constructivist approach was used. A theoretical sampling method was applied to identify researchers or stakeholders representing one of the four systems in the work disability paradigm. A preliminary set of definitions for key terms was assessed using a Web-based questionnaire. It documented participants’ level of agreement with each term’s inclusion and relevance in the field, and the clarity of the definition, while soliciting suggestions for other terms or clearer definitions. Disagreements were discussed at group meetings, yielding consensus on the final terms and definitions.

Results

Eleven stakeholders representing patients, employers, unions, healthcare professionals, and legislative and insurance systems, along with 10 multidisciplinary researchers, participated. The questionnaire yielded initial consensus on the inclusion and definitions of 49 terms, and 109 suggestions mostly for modified definitions (average = 6 suggestions/term). Two preliminary terms were excluded and three terms were added. Ultimately, 80 terms and their definitions yielded consensus.

Conclusions

The process we used to build a common vocabulary was carried out within a transdisciplinary framework. It required a constructivist approach, promoting idea exchanges among participants and co-construction of generally agreed results. The results were rooted in local contexts, thus ensuring the same reference points, regardless of participants’ different understandings.

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

Notes

  1. Mobilisation Intersectorielle de Santé au Travail du centre d’action en prévention et réadaptation de l’incapacité au travail [intersectoral occupational health mobilization team of the Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation].

References

  1. Loisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Vezina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention: new paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Dis Manag Health Out. 2001;9(7):351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, van Tulder M, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Loisel P, Durand MJ, Baril R, Gervais J, Langley A. Interorganizational collaboration in occupational rehabilitation: perceptions of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):581–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schultz IZ, Stowell AW, Feuerstein M, Gatchel RJ. Models of return to work for musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(2):327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tjulin Å, MacEachen E. The importance of workplace social relations in the return to work process: a missing piece in the return to work puzzle? In: Schultz IGR, editor. Handbook of return to work handbooks in health, work, and disability. Boston: Springer; 2016. p. 81–87.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Brønn PS, Brønn C. A reflective stakeholder approach: co-orientation as a basis for communication and learning. J Commu Manag. 2003;7(4):291–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540310807430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):525–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lippel K, Sabourin V. Prévention de la chronicité : comment le droit pourrait-il mieux contribuer à diminuer les incapacités au travail? [preventing chronicity: how could the law help reduce work disability?]. In: Blais Y, editor. Développements récents en droit de la santé et de la sécurité au travail [recent developments in occupational health and safety law] 2020. pp. 81–117. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3585433

  9. Russell E, Kosny A. Communication and collaboration among return-to-work stakeholders. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(22):2630–2639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ståhl C, Costa-Black K, Loisel P. Applying theories to better understand socio-political challenges in implementing evidence-based work disability prevention strategies. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(8):952–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Pransky G, Nicholas MK, Anema JR, Linton SJ. Employer policies and practices to manage and prevent disability: foreword to the special issue. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(4):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stokols D, Hall K, Moser R, Feng A, Misra S, Taylor B. Cross-disciplinary team science initiatives: Research, training, and translation. The Oxford Handbook of interdisciplinarity. 2010 01/01.

  13. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2):S77–S89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK. The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2):S96–S115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stokols D. Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. Am J Community Psychol. 2006;38(1):63–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Neuhauser L, Richardson DM, Mackenzie S, Minkler M. Advancing transdisciplinary and translational research practice: issues and models of doctoral education in public health. J Res Pract. 2007;3(2):19.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Klein JT. Learning in transdisciplinary collaborations: a conceptual vocabulary. Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education: Springer; 2018. pp. 11–23.

  18. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, et al. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci. 2012;7(1):25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Durand M-J, Coutu M-F, Tremblay D, Sylvain C, Gouin M-M, Bilodeau K, et al. Insights into the sustainable return to work of aging workers with a work disability: an interpretative description study. J Occup Rehabil. 2021;31(1):92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Coutu MF, Durand MJ, Coté D, Tremblay D, Sylvain C, Gouin MM, et al. How does gender influence sustainable return to work Following prolonged work disability? An interpretive description study. J Occup Rehabil. 2021;31(3):552–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Coutu MF, Durand MJ, Côté D, Tremblay D, Sylvain C, Gouin MM, et al. Ethnocultural minority workers and sustainable return to work following prolonged work disability: an interpretive description study. J Occup Rehabil. Submitted.

  22. Gervais M, Pépin G, Carrière M. Triage ou comment adapter une technique de recherche à l’intervention clinique en ergothérapie [Triage or how to adapt a research technique to clinical intervention in occupational therapy]. Rev Q Ergo. 2000;9:11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Coutu M-F, Légaré F, Durand M-J, Corbière M, Stacey D, Bainbridge L, et al. Operationalizing a shared decision making model for work rehabilitation programs: a consensus process. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bouffard J, Durand MJ, Coutu MF. Adaptation of a guide to equip employers to manage the gradual return to work of individuals with a musculoskeletal disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(3):625–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dulude E, Coutu MF, Durand MJ. Promoting resilience in work rehabilitation: development of a transdiagnostic intervention. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;31:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tassé MJ, Sabourin G, Garcin N, Lecavalier L. Définition d’un trouble grave du comportement chez les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle [Definition of a serious behavioral disorder in people with an intellectual disability]. Can J Behav Sci. 2010;42(1):62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Albert V, Durand MJ, Pépin G. TRIAGE : une méthode structurée sollicitant l’opinion d’experts en vue d’atteindre un consensus [TRIAGE: a structured method soliciting expert opinion in order to reach consensus]. In: Corbière M, Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives et quantitatives en contexte de réadaptation en santé mentale. Montréal: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2014. p. 305–326.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Denis J-L, Lehoux P, Champagne F. A knowledge utilization perspective on fine-tuning dissemination and contextualizing knowledge. In: Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F, editors. Using knowledge and evidence in health care: multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2004. p. 18–40.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Landry R, Amara N, Lamari M. Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Res Policy. 2001;30:333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The team would like to thank all the stakeholders who took part in this study.

Funding

This study was jointly funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Canadian government’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) under the Healthy and Productive Work initiative (Grant No. 890-2016-3028).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation (CAPRIT), Université de Sherbrooke – Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Suite 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Chantal Sylvain, Marie-Andrée Paquette & Marie-Elise Labrecque

  2. Centre de Recherche Charles-Le Moyne (CRCLM), Université de Sherbrooke – Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Suite 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Dominique Tremblay, Chantal Sylvain, Marie-Andrée Paquette & Marie-Elise Labrecque

  3. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation, Université de Sherbrooke – Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Suite 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand & Chantal Sylvain

  4. Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail (IRSST), 505 Boulevard De Maisonneuve Ouest, Montreal, QC, H3A 3C2, Canada

    Daniel Coté & Iuliana Nastasia

  5. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Université de Sherbrooke – Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Suite 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Dominique Tremblay

  6. Department of Management and Human Resource Management, School of Management, Université de Sherbrooke – Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Suite 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-Michelle Gouin

  7. Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Station Centre-ville, PO Box 6128, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Karine Bilodeau

Authors
  1. Marie-France Coutu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-José Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Coté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dominique Tremblay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chantal Sylvain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marie-Michelle Gouin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Karine Bilodeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Iuliana Nastasia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marie-Andrée Paquette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Marie-Elise Labrecque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-France Coutu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 648 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coutu, MF., Durand, MJ., Coté, D. et al. Building a Common Language to Facilitate Discussion Among Stakeholders in Work Disability: A Consensus Group Approach. J Occup Rehabil 32, 529–537 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10022-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10022-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation