Return to Work in Policing: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Police work includes being exposed to challenging and traumatic situations that can result in physical and/or psychological injuries requiring time off work. Safe return to work (RTW) is critical, yet little is known about current RTW practices in police services. This study examines RTW practices and experiences from the perspective of workplace RTW personnel and workers (sworn and civilian) in police services with physical and/or psychological health conditions. Methods A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit sworn and civilian members in several Canadian police services with a variety of roles who had experienced RTW either as a worker with a work-related injury/illness or those who supported RTW in the service. Interviews were conducted and transcribed for analyses. Qualitative research methods were used to identify themes in the data. Results Five overarching themes emerged. Two themes pointed to the context and culture of police services and included discussions related to RTW processes, injury/illness complexity, the hierarchical nature of the police culture, and a culture of stoicism and stigma. The remaining three themes were about RTW processes of accommodation, communication , and trust-building . Within these themes, recovery from injury/illness, meaningful accommodation, timely clear communication, malingering, and trust were described. Conclusions Our findings point to potential improvements to RTW practices in police services related to flexibility, clarity, confidentiality, and reducing stigma. Future research on RTW practices for psychological injuries is required to help inform policy and practice.
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 | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".