Attitudes towards disability management: A survey of employees returning to work and their supervisors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Return to work after a leave on disability is a common phenomenon, but little is known about the attitudes of employees or their supervisors towards the disability management process. We report on employee and supervisor feedback from one disability management experience. PARTICIPANTS: 389 consecutive employees from the Ontario offices of a single private Canadian insurance company returning to work from short-term disability, and their supervisors. METHODS: We surveyed employees and their supervisors about their experience with, and attitudes towards, the disability management process. RESULTS: Of those surveyed, 88 employees and 75 supervisors provided data (response rates of 22.6% and 19.3% respectively). The majority of respondents (79.1% of employees and supervisors) endorsed positive attitudes towards their disability management experience. More than 25% of employees disagreed with the following three items: case managers contributed to recovery, case managers removed barriers to recovery, and sufficient support was provided in the return to work process. More than 25% of employees and managers reported that a commitment to modify an unhelpful work situation was not followed through. CONCLUSION: The majority of participating employees returning to work from short-term disability, and their supervisors, reported a high level of satisfaction with the disability management process. Areas that may benefit from attention include some aspects of case manager-employee interaction and ensuring that support during the return to work process is provided, including modification to work situations when appropriate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".