Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Self-Efficacy on Return-to-Work Outcomes for Workers with Psychological or Upper-Body Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Review of the Literature

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose Work absence can result in substantial losses to the economy and workers. As a result, identifying modifiable factors associated with return-to-work (RTW) following an injury or illness is the focus of many empirical investigations. Self-efficacy, the belief about one’s ability to undertake behaviours to achieve desired goals, has been identified as an important factor in RTW for injured workers. This paper systematically reviewed the literature on the association between self-efficacy and RTW outcomes for workers with an upper-body musculoskeletal injury or psychological injury. Methods A systematic search was conducted across five databases using two main search concepts- ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘RTW’. After removing duplicates, our search strategy identified 836 studies, which were screened for relevance using titles and abstracts. Results A two stage screening process reduced the study pool to six studies using psychological injury cohorts and three using upper-body musculoskeletal (UB-MSK) cohorts. Eight cohorts from seven prospective cohort studies and one sample from a randomised control trial (RCT) were subjected to a risk of bias assessment. Higher levels of self-efficacy appeared to have a consistent and positive association with RTW across return-to-work status and work absence outcomes, injury type and follow-up periods. Effect ratios ranged from 1.00 to 5.26 indicating a potentially large impact of self-efficacy on RTW outcomes. The relationship between self-efficacy and RTW strengthened as the domain of self-efficacy became more specific to RTW and job behaviours. Studies assessing workers with psychological injuries were of a lower quality compared to those assessing workers with UB-MSK injuries. Conclusions Higher self-efficacy had consistent positive associations with RTW outcomes. Further empirical research should identify the determinants of self-efficacy, and explore the processes by which higher self-efficacy improves RTW outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Takala J, Hamalainen P, Saarela KL, Yun LY, Manickam K, Jin TW, et al. Global estimates of the burden of injury and illness at work in 2012. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11(5):326–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Australia S. The cost of work-related injury and illness for Australian employers, workers and the community: 2008–09. Canberra: SafeWork Australia; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gilks J, Logan R. Occupational injuries and diseases in Canada, 1996–2008. Ottawa: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Division OHaS; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Murgatroyd DF, Casey PP, Cameron ID, Harris IA. The effect of financial compensation on health outcomes following musculoskeletal injury: systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0117597.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Adams H, Ellis T, Stanish WD, Sullivan MJ. Psychosocial factors related to return to work following rehabilitation of whiplash injuries. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(2):305–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Krause N, Frank JW, Dasinger LK, Sullivan TJ, Sinclair SJ. Determinants of duration of disability and return-to-work after work-related injury and illness: challenges for future research. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40(4):464–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Deegan LJ, Rudolph L, Brand RJ. Psychosocial job factors and return-to-work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40(4):374–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gallagher MW. Self-efficacy. In: Ramachandran VS, editor. Encyclopedia of human behavior (second edition). San Diego: Academic Press; 2012. pp. 314–20.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, van Tulder M, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):507–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brouwer S, Reneman MF, Bultmann U, van der Klink JJ, Groothoff JW. A prospective study of return to work across health conditions: perceived work attitude, self-efficacy and perceived social support. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(1):104–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wahlin C, Ekberg K, Persson J, Bernfort L, Oberg B. Association between clinical and work-related interventions and return-to-work for patients with musculoskeletal or mental disorders. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(4):355–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dionne CE, Bourbonnais R, Fremont P, Rossignol M, Stock SR, Nouwen A, et al. Determinants of “return to work in good health” among workers with back pain who consult in primary care settings: a 2-year prospective study. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(5):641–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Richard S, Dionne C, Nouwen A. Self-efficacy and health locus of control: relationship to occupational disability among workers with back pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(3):421–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Noordik E, van Dijk FJH, van der Klink JJ. Return to work perceptions and actual return to work in workers with common mental disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(2):290–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Niemeyer LO. Identifying psychosocial indicators of high risk for delayed recovery in an outpatient industrially injured population. Diss Abstr Int. 2000;60(9-B):4564.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shaw WS, Reme SE, Linton SJ, Huang YH, Pransky G. 3rd place, PREMUS best paper competition: development of the return-to-work self-efficacy (RTWSE-19) questionnaire-psychometric properties and predictive validity. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011;37(2):109–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lagerveld SE, Blonk RWB, Brenninkmeijer V, Schaufeli WB. Return to work among employees with mental health problems: development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire. Work Stress. 2010;24(4):359–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kendell R. “The distinction between mental and physical illness”: author’s reply. Br J Psychiatry. 2001;179(5):462–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Statistics New Zealand. Table 4: all claims for work-related injury by District Health Board 2014 PROVISIONAL [Database]. Statistics New Zealand; 2014. http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7934.

  21. OHSCO. MSD prevention guideline for Ontario. Part 1. OHSCO; 2005.

  22. Safework Australia. Australian workers’ compensation statistics 2011–2012. Canberra: Safework Australia; 2013.

  23. Gnam W. Mental disorders, mental disability at work, and workers’ compensation. Institute for Work and Health; 1998.

  24. Endnote X6 ed: Thomson Reuters; 2012.

  25. Nevis I, Sikich N, Ye C, Kabali C. Quality control tool for screening titles and abstracts by second reviewer: QCTSTAR. J Biomet Biostat. 2015;6:230.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. 2014. Report NO.: Contract No.: AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF.

  27. Sterne JAC HJ, on behalf of the development group for ACROBAT NRSI. A cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: for non-randomized studies of interventions (ACROBATNRSI): Cochrane; 2014 [cited version 1.0.0 22/06/2015]. http://www.riskofbias.info.

  28. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. van Beurden K, van der Klink J, Brouwers E, Joosen M, Mathijssen J, Terluin B, et al. Effect of an intervention to enhance guideline adherence of occupational physicians on return-to-work self-efficacy in workers sick-listed with common mental disorders. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):796. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2125-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Brouwer S, Amick BC, 3rd, Lee H, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S. The predictive validity of the return-to-work self-efficacy scale for return-to-work outcomes in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(4):725–32

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ekberg K, Wahlin C, Persson J, Bernfort L, Oberg B. Early and late return to work after sick leave: predictors in a cohort of sick-listed individuals with common mental disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(3):627–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hailpern SM, Visintainer PF. Odds ratios and logistic regression: further examples of their use and interpretation. Stata J. 2003;3(3):213–25.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fewtrell MS, Kennedy K, Singhal A, Martin RM, Ness A, Hadders-Algra M, et al. How much loss to follow-up is acceptable in long-term randomised trials and prospective studies? Arch Dis Childhood. 93(6):458–61.

  34. Altmaier EM, Russell DW, Kao CF, Lehmann TR, Weinstein JN. Role of self-efficacy in rehabilitation outcome among chronic low back pain patients. J Couns Psychol. 1993;40(3):335–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Brouwer S, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Lee H, Krause N, Shaw WS. Return-to-work self-efficacy: development and validation of a scale in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(2):244–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Black OC, Sim MR, Collie A, Smith P. A return-to-work self-efficacy scale for workers with psychological or musculoskeletal work-related injuries. Qual Quant. 2017;51(1):413–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Safe Work Australia. Australian workers’ compensation statistics 2011–2012. In: Australia SW, editor. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2013.

  38. Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J, et al. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):607–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Clay FJ, Berecki-Gisolf J, Collie A. How well do we report on compensation systems in studies of return to work: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(1):111–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vlasveld MC, Van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Ader HJ, Anema JR, Hoedeman R, Van Mechelen W, et al. Collaborative care for sick-listed workers with major depressive disorder: a randomised controlled trial from the netherlands depression initiative aimed at return to work and depressive symptoms. Occup Environ Med. 2013;70(4):223–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Hoedeman R, de Jong FJ, Meeuwissen JA, Drewes HW, van der Laan NC, et al. Faster return to work after psychiatric consultation for sicklisted employees with common mental disorders compared to care as usual. A randomized clinical trial. Neuropsychiatry Dis Treat. 2010;6(1):375–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Volker D, Zijlstra-Vlasveld MC, Anema JR, Beekman AT, Brouwers EP, Emons WH, et al. Effectiveness of a blended web-based intervention on return to work for sick-listed employees with common mental disorders: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. van Oostrom SH, Anema JR, Terluin B, de Vet HC, Knol DL, van Mechelen W. Cost-effectiveness of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with common mental disorders: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Linkage Grant from the Australian Research Council. (LP130100091). P. M. Smith was supported by the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council (DE120101580). He is currently supported by a Research Chair in Gender, Work and Health from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 6, Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia

    Oliver Black, Tessa Keegel, Malcolm R. Sim, Alexander Collie & Peter Smith

  2. School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

    Tessa Keegel

  3. Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Alexander Collie

  4. Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Peter Smith

  5. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Peter Smith

Authors
  1. Oliver Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tessa Keegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Malcolm R. Sim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander Collie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Black.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Appendix 1 (DOCX 31 KB)

Online Appendix 2 (DOCX 26 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Black, O., Keegel, T., Sim, M.R. et al. The Effect of Self-Efficacy on Return-to-Work Outcomes for Workers with Psychological or Upper-Body Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Review of the Literature. J Occup Rehabil 28, 16–27 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9697-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9697-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation