Successful return to work: the role of fairness and workplace‐based strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Consistent with previous research, the purpose of this paper is to propose that the presence of workplace‐based return‐to‐work strategies would reduce the duration of work disability. Moving beyond existing research, the paper further seeks to propose that these strategies would also enhance mental health and affective commitment among injured workers. In addition, the paper aims to introduce interactional justice – injured workers' perceptions of the interpersonal and informational fairness of the person most responsible for their return‐to‐work process – to the return‐to‐work context, and to hypothesize that these factors would also contribute to the explanation of these outcomes. Design/methodology/approach Within five weeks of their injury, telephone interviews were conducted with 166 workers from the province of Ontario, Canada, who had experienced musculoskeletal lost‐time workplace injuries. Findings Multiple regression analyses indicate that certain workplace‐based strategies were associated with days on compensation, self‐reported days absent, and depressive symptoms, but not affective commitment. Further, as hypothesized, interactional justice accounted for additional variance explained in self‐reported days absent, depressive symptoms, and affective commitment. Interactional justice did not explain additional variance in days on compensation. Practical implications The findings have implications for employers engaged in return‐to‐work practices and researchers studying return to work. Both should address not only the workplace‐based strategies used, but also the way in which these strategies are implemented. Originality/value The paper replicates previous empirical work on return‐to‐work interventions and demonstrates the importance of the presence of workplace‐based strategies in explaining the duration of work disability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".