Top

Published in:

01-03-2007 | Original Paper

Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study

Authors: Kristina Holmgren, Synneve Dahlin Ivanoff

Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Issue 1/2007

Abstract

Background: Supervisors’ attitudes and measures have been pointed out by employees to influence the return to work process. The purpose of this study was to explore supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process and factors influencing the support of sick-listed employees. Method: The focus group method was used. Six groups were conducted and each group met on one occasion. Twenty-three supervisors experienced in managing sick-listed employees participated. Result: Two different themes emerged; In “The Supervisor is the Key Person” the participants found themselves as being key persons, carrying the main responsibility for the rehabilitation of the sick-listed employees and for creating a good working environment, thus preventing ill health and sick-listing among the employees. In the second theme “Influential Factors in Rehabilitation Work” the participants described the rehabilitation work as a part of a greater whole influenced by society, demands and resources of the workplace and the interplay between all parties involved. Conclusion: The study gives us the supervisors’ perspective on the complexity of the return to work rehabilitation. This knowledge could be invaluable and be used to improve the possibilities for developing successful collaboration in occupational rehabilitation.

Holmgren K, Dahlin Ivanoff S. Women on sickness absence–views of possibilities and obstacles for returning to work. A focus group study. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26(4):213–222.PubMedCrossRef

Nordqvist C, Holmqvist C, Alexanderson K. Views of laypersons on the role employers play in return to work when sick-listed. J Occup Rehabil 2003;13(1):11–20.PubMedCrossRef

Strunin L, Boden LI. Paths of reentry: Employment experiences of injured workers. Am J Ind Med 2000;38(4):373–384.PubMedCrossRef

Riksförsäkringsverket. Socialförsäkring. Lagen om allmän försäkran och andra författningar (Social Insurance. The law of general insurance and other constitutions.): Riksförsäkringsverket, 2001. Report No.: AFL 22:3. (In Swedish.)

Heijbel B, Josephson M, Jensen I, Vingard E. Employer, insurance, and health system response to long-term sick leave in the public sector: Policy implications. J Occup Rehabil 2005;15(2):167–176.PubMedCrossRef

Arnetz BB, Sjogren B, Rydehn B, Meisel R. Early workplace intervention for employees with musculoskeletal-related absenteeism: A prospective controlled intervention study. J Occup Environ Med 2003;45(5):499–506.PubMedCrossRef

Burkhauser RV, Butler JS, Yang WK. The importance of employer accommodation on the job duration of workers with disabilities: A hazard model approach. Labour Economics 1995;2:109–130.CrossRef

Dahlin Ivanoff S. Focus group discussions as a tool for developing a health education programme for elderly persons with visual impairment. Scan J Occup Ther 2002;9:3–9.CrossRef

Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 1994;16:103–121.CrossRef

10.

Krueger RA. Quality control in focus group research. In: Morgan DL, ed. Successful focus groups. Advancing the state of the art. California: Sage Publication; 1993, pp. 65–85.

11.

Kitzinger J, Barbour R. Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In: Barbour R, Kitzinger J, ed. Developing focus group research. Politics, theory and practice. London: Sage Publications; 1999, pp 1–20.

12.

Krueger RA. Focus group. A practical guide for applied research. California: Sage Publications; 1988.

13.

Nieuwenhuijsen K, Verbeek JH, de Boer AG, Blonk RW, van Dijk FJ. Supervisory behaviour as a predictor of return to work in employees absent from work due to mental health problems. Occup Environ Med 2004;61(10):817–823.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Janssen N, van den Heuvel WP, Beurskens AJ, Nijhuis FJ, Schroer CA, van Eijk JT. The Demand-Control-Support model as a predictor of return to work. Int J Rehabil Res 2003;26(1):1–9.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kenny DT. Employers’ perspectives on the provision of suitable duties in occupational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil 1999;9(4):267–276.CrossRef

16.

Krause N, Dasinger LK, Neuhauser F. Modified work and return to work: A review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil 1998;8(2):113–139.CrossRef

17.

Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: A systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil 2005;15(4):607–631.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Navarro V, Shi L. The political context of social inequalities and health. Soc Sci Med 2001;52(3):481–491.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Östlin P. Gender inequalities in health: The significance of work. In: Wamala SP, Lynch J, ed. Gender and social inequities in health. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2002, pp. 43–65.

20.

Vahtera J, Kivimäki M, Pentti J, Theorell T. Effect of change in the psychosocial work environment on sickness absence: A seven year follow up of initially healthy employees. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000;54(7):484–493.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Vahtera J, Kivimaki M, Pentti J. Effect of organisational downsizing on health of employees. Lancet 1997;350(9085):1124–1128.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Bourbonnais R, Mondor M. Job strain and sickness absence among nurses in the province of Quebec. Am J Ind Med 2001;39(2):194–202.PubMedCrossRef

23.

North FM, Syme SL, Feeney A, Shipley M, Marmot M. Psychosocial work environment and sickness absence among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study. Am J Public Health 1996;86(3):332–340.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Voss M, Floderus B, Diderichsen F. Physical, psychosocial, and organisational factors relative to sickness absence: A study based on Sweden Post. Occup Environ Med 2001;58(3):178–184.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Voss M, Floderus B, Diderichsen F. How do job characteristics, family situation, domestic work, and lifestyle factors relate to sickness absence? A study based on Sweden Post. J Occup Environ Med 2004;46(11):1134–1143.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Vingard E, Lindberg P, Josephson M, Voss M, Heijbel B, Alfredsson L, et al. Long-term sick-listing among women in the public sector and its associations with age, social situation, lifestyle, and work factors: A three-year follow-up study. Scand J Public Health 2005;33(5):370–375.PubMedCrossRef

27.

North F, Syme SL, Feeney A, Head J, Shipley MJ, Marmot MG. Explaining socioeconomic differences in sickness absence: The Whitehall II Study. BMJ 1993;306(6874):361–366.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Ostlund G, Cedersund E, Hensing G, Alexanderson K. Domestic strain: A hindrance in rehabilitation? Scand J Caring Sci 2004;18(1):49–56.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Lundberg U, Mårdberg B, Frankenhaeuser M. The total workload of male and female white collar workers as related to age, occupational level, and number of children. Scand J Psychol 1994;35(4):315–327.PubMed

30.

Hensing G, Alexanderson K. The relation of adult experience of domestic harassment, violence and sexual abuse to health and sickness absence. Int J Behav Med 2000;7:1–18.CrossRef

31.

Pollock N. Client-centered assessment. Am J Occup Ther 1993;47(4):298–301.PubMed

32.

Wressle E, Eeg-Olofsson AM, Marcusson J, Henriksson C. Improved client participation in the rehabilitation process using a client-centred goal formulation structure. J Rehabil Med 2002;34(1):5–11.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Riksförsäkringsverket. Långtidssjukskrivna – diagnos, yrke, partiell sjukskrivning och återgång i arbete (Long-term sick-listed – diagnoses, occupation, partial sick-listing and return to work). Stockholm: Riksförsäkringsverket, 2004. Report No.: 2004:7. (In Swedish.)

34.

Dunn W, Brown C, McGuigan A. The ecology of human performance: A framework for considering the effect of context. Am J Occup Ther 1994;48(7):595–607.PubMed

35.

Law M, Cooper BA, Strong S, Stewart D, Rigby P, Letts L. The Person-Environment-Occupational Model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Can J Occup Ther 1996;63(1):9–23.

Title: Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study
Authors: Kristina Holmgren
Synneve Dahlin Ivanoff
Publication date: 01-03-2007
Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Issue 1/2007
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-006-9041-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

Functional Self-Efficacy Beliefs Influence Functional Capacity Evaluation

The Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Neck Pain and Upper Limb Pain among Secondary School Teachers in Hong Kong

C. Liebenson (Ed), Rehabilitation of the Spine. A Practitioner’s Manual

Owner Attitudes and Self Reported Behavior Towards Modified Work After Occupational Injury Absence in Small Enterprises: A Qualitative Study

Are deficiencies in manual tracking associated with upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders?

Prospective Analysis of Factors Associated with Work Reentry in Patients with Accident-Related Injuries