Getting the Message Right: Evidence-Based Insights to Improve Organizational Return-to-Work Communication Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There is an absence of evidence-based guidance to support workplace stakeholders in the effective delivery of return-to-work (RTW) messages. Our study examines the specific RTW communication practices and their impact on the management of work disability. Methods Within two large and complex healthcare organizations, semi-structured interviews were conducted with workplace stakeholders (e.g., supervisors, union representatives, disability management professionals and workers' compensation representatives) and workers who had previously experienced sickness absence related to an occupational injury or illness. For workplace stakeholders interview questions asked about their roles and responsibilities in the RTW process, and specific communication strategies and messages that were used at different phases of the RTW process. For worker participants, interview questions explored RTW experiences and the impact of communication on work re-integration. An interpretative descriptive approach was used to inductively examine themes from interviews to create ways of understanding phenomena that yielded applied findings. Results Forty participants were interviewed including workplace stakeholders and workers. Participants frequently described effective RTW communication as messages that were delivered by a workplace stakeholder that included the content required by an injured worker to navigate the organizational disability management process and utilized specific strategies to address the perceived attitudes and perceptions held by an injured worker regarding work re-integration. Workplace stakeholders described five specific communication strategies including relaying messages of support, optimizing the timing of communication, careful word choice, framing messages, and tailoring communication to the injured worker. Conclusion RTW communication is an active process that requires a strategic approach. Effective communication practices represent an important strategy for workplace stakeholders to address the barriers held by injured workers and foster early and sustained RTW.
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 | 0.096 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".