Workplace managers’ view of the role of co-workers in return-to-work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Theoretical and empirical research findings attest to the workplace being a social environment in which co-workers have a critical influence on the employment outcomes and return-to-work (RTW) success of other employees. However, co-workers do not have a formal role in RTW planning. The aim of this study was to explore how managers responsible for developing and implementing RTW procedures view the role of co-workers in this process. METHOD: An exploratory qualitative pilot study was conducted in Canada. Participants (1 male; 13 females; mean experience in RTW = 11.8 years) were workplace (n=8) or RTW managers (n=6) with direct oversight of RTW plans. The participants were recruited via invitation from a research institute and were drawn from three different provinces. Data were gathered via open-ended questions and were coded and subject to thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Three key themes were identified: (1) Managers view RTW as having little relevance to co-workers but expect them to cooperate with the arrangements; (2) Formal procedures are inadequate when psychosocial barriers to work resumption are present, so managers use informal strategies to engage co-workers' emotional and social support; and (3) Managers have difficulty integrating RTW procedures with other legal obligations, such as privacy and confidentiality requirements. CONCLUSION: Existing arrangements for the development and implementation of RTW are sufficient most of the time, but may be inadequate when an injured worker presents with psychosocial barriers to work resumption. Implications for Rehabilitation Standard RTW arrangements can be inadequate when a RTW plan requires active co-worker support. Privacy and confidentiality provisions can result in managers using informal procedures for information exchange and to engage co-workers. The use of risk management strategies - assessment, consultation and communication - could be used to include co-workers when workplace issues threaten the success of a RTW plan.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".