MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156543445 · doi:10.1093/annweh/wxaa133

Workplace Organizational and Psychosocial Factors Associated with Return-to-Work Interruption and Reinjury Among Workers with Permanent Impairment

2020· article· en· W3156543445 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanne M. Sears, Beryl A. Schulman, Deborah Fulton‐Kehoe, Sheilah Hogg‐Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Work Exposures and Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Work & Health
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicinePsychological interventionWorkers' compensationOccupational safety and healthRehabilitationLogistic regressionCohortOccupational rehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychologyPsychiatryCompensation (psychology)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Roughly 10% of occupational injuries result in permanent impairment and a permanent partial disability (PPD) award. After initial return to work (RTW) following a work injury, many workers with permanent impairment face RTW interruption (breaks in ongoing employment due to reinjury, poor health, disability, lay-off, etc.). Most RTW and reinjury research has focused on worker-level risk factors, and less is known about contextual factors that may be amenable to workplace or workers' compensation (WC)-based interventions. The aim of this study was to identify modifiable organizational and psychosocial workplace factors associated with (i) RTW interruption and (ii) reinjury among workers with a permanent impairment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included WC claims data and survey data for 567 injured workers who RTW at least briefly after a work-related injury that resulted in permanent impairment. Workers were interviewed once by phone, 11-15 months after WC claim closure with a PPD award. Logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between each workplace factor of interest and each outcome, controlling for whole body impairment percentage, gender, age, nativity, educational level, State Fund versus self-insured WC coverage, employer size, union membership, industry sector, and employment duration of current/most recent job. RESULTS: Twelve percent of workers had been reinjured in their current or most recent job, 12% of workers were no longer working at the time of interview, and <1% of workers reported both outcomes. The most frequently reported reason for RTW interruption was impairment, disability, and/or pain from the previous work injury. Lower reported levels of safety climate, supervisor support, and ability to take time off work for personal/family matters were significantly associated with both RTW interruption and reinjury. Inadequate employer/health care provider communication, perceived stigmatization from supervisors and/or coworkers, and lower levels of coworker support were significantly associated with RTW interruption but not with reinjury. Discomfort with reporting an unsafe situation at work, absence of a health and safety committee, and higher job strain were significantly associated with reinjury, but not with RTW interruption. Inadequate safety training and lack of needed job accommodations were not significantly associated with either outcome. There were no notable or statistically significant interactions between workplace factors and degree of impairment, and no consistent direction of association. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that several potentially modifiable organizational and psychosocial factors are associated with safe and sustained RTW among injured workers with work-related permanent impairment. The lack of interaction between any of these workplace factors and degree of impairment suggests that these findings may be generalizable to all workers, and further suggests that workplace interventions based on these findings might be useful for both primary and secondary prevention. Though primary prevention is key, secondary prevention efforts to sustain RTW and prevent reinjury may reduce the considerable health, economic, and social burden of occupational injury and illness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Work Exposures and HealthSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207