Early return to work of injured workers: multidimensional patterns of individual and organizational factors

Abstract The research reported here, part of a larger exploratory project about the factors that may play a role in the implementation of corporate return to work measures, characterized workers having suffered an occupational injury. These workers constitute the target population of a governmental policy designed to favour early return to work. The study population was composed of 13 728 cases of occupational injury. The characteristics of workers, characteristics of injuries and structural characteristics of companies in cases in which return to work measures were present were compared with these same characteristics in cases in which such measures were absent. Using correspondence and ascending hierarchical classification analyses, homogenous groups were identified. Bivariate analysis revealed that the following eight variables were associated with the presence of early return to work measures (i.e. the proportion of cases benefiting from early return to work measures was significantly higher than expected): nature of the injury (inflammation); site of injury (upper limbs and shoulder); CSST assessment category (=100%, i.e. large company); duration of absence (0–44 days and 183–365 days); gender (female); sector (rubber and plastics); relapse (present); and age (30–39 years). The presence or absence of return to work measures was a defining characteristic of five of the seven classes identified by multivariate analysis. The composition of these classes reflects the complex interaction between return to work measures on the one hand and the socio-demographic characteristics of workers, characteristics of injuries, and structural characteristics of companies on the other.

[1]  B. Ford International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps , 1984, Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire.

[2]  R. Norman,et al.  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 , 1996, Spine.

[3]  D. Drury Disability Management in Small Firms. , 1991 .

[4]  D. J. Wood,et al.  Design and Evaluation of a Back Injury Prevention Program Within a Geriatric Hospital , 1987, Spine.

[5]  J.-P. Benzecri,et al.  Introduction à la classification ascendante hiérarchique d'après un exemple de données économiques , 1985 .

[6]  D. Chessel,et al.  Qu'est-ce que l'Analyse des Donnees?. , 1983 .

[7]  R. J. Shoemaker Corporate Resistance to Early Return to Work Policy , 1989 .

[8]  Richard J. Butler,et al.  Managing Work Disability: Why First Return to Work is Not a Measure of Success , 1995 .

[9]  Esther Cloutier,et al.  The effect of age on safety and work practices among domestic trash collectors in Quebec , 1994 .

[10]  M. Durand,et al.  Le Retour Thérapeutique au Travail comme une intervention de réadaptation centralisée dans le milieu de travail: Description et fondements théoriques , 1998 .

[11]  Donald E. Shrey,et al.  Principles and practices of disability management in industry , 1995 .

[12]  Fong Chan,et al.  Employer Factors Related to Workers' Compensation Claims and Disability Management , 1991 .

[13]  Samy Suissa,et al.  A Population‐Based, Randomized Clinical Trial on Back Pain Management , 1997, Spine.

[14]  Denise G. Tate,et al.  Disability Management: Origins, Concepts and Principles for Practice , 1986, Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling.

[15]  Frank W. Neuhauser,et al.  Modified Work and Return to Work: A Review of the Literature , 1998, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation.

[16]  Per Dahlén,et al.  Rehabilitation in Swedish industryAn industrial economic analysis , 1996 .

[17]  S. Akabas,et al.  Disability management : a complete system to reduce costs, increase productivity, meet employee needs, and ensure legal compliance , 1994 .

[18]  D. Tate,et al.  WORKERS' DISABILITY AND RETURN TO WORK , 1992, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.