Return-to-Work Following Depression: What Work Accommodations Do Employers and Human Resources Directors Put in Place?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The magnitude of economic and social costs related to common mental disorders has a profound impact on the workplace. Returning to work following depression is, therefore, a major issue for all stakeholders involved (employee, employer, human resources director, union, physician, etc.). Considering their role in the organization, Human Resources Directors (HRD) and employers have a decisive impact on the return-to-work (RTW) process. Purpose This study aims to determine which RTW accommodations are implemented, following depression, by one of the central stakeholders: HRD and employers. Methods 219 HRD/employers participated in a semi-structured telephone interview about RTW of employees after depression. From that interview, the question related to this article was: Do you put in place work accommodations for employees after a sick leave due to depression (yes or no)? If their response was positive, we asked: If yes, what were the work accommodations? Results 170 HRD/employers specified accommodations. The most common categories identified were related to: work schedule, task modifications, job change and work environment change. Accommodations directly related to the employee or the colleagues were considerably less mentioned and those concerning other RTW stakeholders, including supervisor, were almost absent. Conclusion Our results suggest that accommodations directly related to work aspects seemed to predominate in our sample of HRD/employers when an employee returned-to-work following depression. The relational aspect and the involvement of the different stakeholders are also not prioritized to accommodate the RTW. These results contrast with employer best practice guidelines for the RTW of workers with common mental disorders.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".