Inclusion Through Action: A Participatory Approach to Return-to-Work Policy Change Processes in Organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many organisations strive to make disability management (DM) responses to prevent work disability and promote return-to-work (RTW). However, a deeper appreciation of methods that can ensure equitable worker participation in the development and change of RTW policy and practice is needed. Using an action research approach, this study expands the concept of participation in disability management (DM) creating new insights into the resources, dilemmas and aspirations of RTW policies in organisations. Empirical data was gathered from a development and change process conducted together with managers and workers at a large health care workplace. A series of workshops were conducted, studying the common history of RTW policy evolvement and configuration, and encouraging the creation of worker-driven proposals for alternative actions to current management. Action research protocols were used to document knowledge creation. Analysis of action research processes reveals how workers insisted on discussing their work environment as an important factor for maintenance of RTW, and how consistent participatory possibilities and team oriented RTW coordination among all levels of the organisation are perceived as critical features for supportive and sustained job retention. Participatory processes created relevant knowledge of the importance of work environments in coordination of stay at work, which may strengthen RTW capacity building and advance DM in organisations.
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 | 0.125 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".