MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3156543445 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxaa133

Workplace Organizational and Psychosocial Factors Associated with Return-to-Work Interruption and Reinjury Among Workers with Permanent Impairment

2020· article· en· W3156543445 sur OpenAlexaff
Jeanne M. Sears, Beryl A. Schulman, Deborah Fulton‐Kehoe, Sheilah Hogg‐Johnson

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueOccupational Health and Safety Research
Établissements canadiensPublic Health OntarioCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Work & Health
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Mots-clésPsychosocialMedicinePsychological interventionWorkers' compensationOccupational safety and healthRehabilitationLogistic regressionCohortOccupational rehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatryCompensation (psychology)Social psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Roughly 10% of occupational injuries result in permanent impairment and a permanent partial disability (PPD) award. After initial return to work (RTW) following a work injury, many workers with permanent impairment face RTW interruption (breaks in ongoing employment due to reinjury, poor health, disability, lay-off, etc.). Most RTW and reinjury research has focused on worker-level risk factors, and less is known about contextual factors that may be amenable to workplace or workers' compensation (WC)-based interventions. The aim of this study was to identify modifiable organizational and psychosocial workplace factors associated with (i) RTW interruption and (ii) reinjury among workers with a permanent impairment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included WC claims data and survey data for 567 injured workers who RTW at least briefly after a work-related injury that resulted in permanent impairment. Workers were interviewed once by phone, 11-15 months after WC claim closure with a PPD award. Logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between each workplace factor of interest and each outcome, controlling for whole body impairment percentage, gender, age, nativity, educational level, State Fund versus self-insured WC coverage, employer size, union membership, industry sector, and employment duration of current/most recent job. RESULTS: Twelve percent of workers had been reinjured in their current or most recent job, 12% of workers were no longer working at the time of interview, and <1% of workers reported both outcomes. The most frequently reported reason for RTW interruption was impairment, disability, and/or pain from the previous work injury. Lower reported levels of safety climate, supervisor support, and ability to take time off work for personal/family matters were significantly associated with both RTW interruption and reinjury. Inadequate employer/health care provider communication, perceived stigmatization from supervisors and/or coworkers, and lower levels of coworker support were significantly associated with RTW interruption but not with reinjury. Discomfort with reporting an unsafe situation at work, absence of a health and safety committee, and higher job strain were significantly associated with reinjury, but not with RTW interruption. Inadequate safety training and lack of needed job accommodations were not significantly associated with either outcome. There were no notable or statistically significant interactions between workplace factors and degree of impairment, and no consistent direction of association. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that several potentially modifiable organizational and psychosocial factors are associated with safe and sustained RTW among injured workers with work-related permanent impairment. The lack of interaction between any of these workplace factors and degree of impairment suggests that these findings may be generalizable to all workers, and further suggests that workplace interventions based on these findings might be useful for both primary and secondary prevention. Though primary prevention is key, secondary prevention efforts to sustain RTW and prevent reinjury may reduce the considerable health, economic, and social burden of occupational injury and illness.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,021

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,158
Tête enseignante GPT0,445
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations15
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthMême sujetOccupational Health and Safety ResearchTravaux en français237 207