Affiliations: [a] Occupational Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD, Australia
| [b] Brisbane Hand and Upper Limb Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| [c] Department of Physiotherapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD, Australia
| [d] Harvard Center for Work, Health and Wellbeing, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| [e] School of Medicine, Griffith University, QLD, Australia
| [f] Department of Allied Health, Pindara Private Hospital, Benowa, QLD, Australia
| [g] RECOVER Injury Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Susan E. Peters, Harvard Center for Work Health and Wellbeing, Level 7, 375 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02215-5395, USA. E-mail: research@susanepeters.com.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Stakeholders involved in the return-to-work (RTW) process have different roles and qualifications OBJECTIVE:To explore the perspectives of Australian stakeholders of the RTW barriers and strategies for a worker with an upper extremity condition and a complex workers’ compensation case. METHODS:Using a case vignette, stakeholders were asked to identify barriers and recommend strategies to facilitate RTW. Content analysis was performed on the open-ended responses. The responses were categorised into RTW barriers and strategies using the biopsychosocial model. Pearson’s Chi Square and ANOVA were performed to establish group differences. RESULTS:621 participants (488 healthcare providers (HCPs), 62 employers, 55 insurers and 16 lawyers) identified 36 barriers (31 modifiable): 4 demographic; 8 biological; 15 psychological and 9 social barriers. 484 participants reported 16 RTW strategies: 4 biological; 6 psychological and 6 social strategies. ‘Work relationship stressors’ (83.4%) and ‘Personal relationship stressors’ (64.7%) were the most frequently nominated barriers. HCPs most frequently nominated ‘Pain management’ (49.6%), while employers, insurers and lawyers nominated ‘RTW planning/Suitable duties programs’ (40.5%; 42.9%; 80%). CONCLUSIONS:Stakeholders perceived similar barriers for RTW but recommended different strategies. Stakeholders appeared to be more proficient in identifying barriers than recommending strategies. Future research should focus on tools to both identify RTW barriers and direct intervention.
Keywords: Sick leave, rehabilitation, hand, wrist, work disability
