Australian Employee Perspectives on Disability Management in Relation to Job Satisfaction, Physical and Mental Health, Workplace Morale and Reduced Sickness Absence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disability management is now recognised as an effective means of managing the increasing global costs of injury and disability. However, research on disability management particularly employee perceptions of its value, are sparse. This paper reports on the Australian findings of a large international project that included Canada, China, Switzerland and Australia, which examined employee perspectives of disability management related to job satisfaction, physical and mental health, workplace morale and reduced sickness absence. Data was collected from 365 employees in 10 large private and public companies using an online survey tool that focused on three components of a disability management program — disability prevention (DP), stay at work (SAW) and return to work (RTW) programs — in relation to the dependent variables of job satisfaction, physical and mental health, workplace morale, sickness absence. Multivariate regression was used to predict disability management's influence on the dependent variables. Results demonstrated positive perceptions regarding the perceived benefits of disability management to both individual employees and their perceptions of coworkers. It was apparent that each component of a disability management program (DP, SAW, and RTW) is positively related to job satisfaction, physical and mental health, workplace morale and reduced sickness absence Disability management programs were perceived as more beneficial in private, as opposed to public, workplaces; however, no differences were evident according to union status or gender of the respondent. It is possible disability management may impact on organisational productivity via variables associated with workplace culture, as well as through the direct benefits flowing from preventing and managing injury. Given the significant costs associated with absenteeism, an outcome of interest to many employers was the finding that employees perceived SAW programs as the most beneficial in terms of reducing absenteeism for both themselves and their coworkers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".