Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differences Over Time in the Prognostic Effect of Return to Work Self-Efficacy on a Sustained Return to Work

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

Abstract

Purpose This study investigated the association between return to work self-efficacy (RTW-SE) and sustained return to work (RTW) at two different time points, over a 12-month period. The primary objective of the study was to examine if the relationship between RTW-SE and a sustained RTW changed over the RTW timeline. Methods This study used survey responses from a longitudinal cohort of n = 410 workers’ compensation claimants with either an upper-body musculoskeletal injury or a psychological injury. A path analysis tested the associations between RTW-SE and a sustained RTW at two time-points. A Wald χ2 test compared nested models to determine if the association changed over time. Results RTW-SE measured at time- point 1 (T1) was associated with a sustained RTW at time-point two (T2) (β = 0.24, P < 0.05) but no association was found between RTW-SE at T2 and a sustained RTW at time-point three (T3) (β = 0.017, n.s.). Model comparisons revealed significant differences in the associations between RTW-SE and a sustained RTW, with the relationship being stronger in the early phase of RTW compared to the latter phase (χ2 = 5.002, p = 0.03). Conclusions The results indicate that RTW-SE at 4–6 months post-injury is important for a sustained RTW 6-months later although RTW-SE at 10–12 months post-injury had a negligible association over the same duration. Further research should investigate whether these findings generalize to other populations and what factors other than RTW-SE are associated with RTW in the later stages of the RTW process.

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. Australia SW. Key workers’ compensation information, Australia 2014. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lane TCA, Hassani-Mahmooei B. Work-related injury and illness in Australia, 2004 to 2014. What is the incidence of work-relates conditions and their impact on time lost from work by state and territory, age, gender and injury type? Melbourne: Monash University, ISCRR; 2016. Report No.: 118-0616-R02.

  3. Waddell GBA. Is work good for your health and well-being? London: TSO; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  5. Safework Australia. Australian workers’ compensation statistics 2015–2016. Canberra: Safework Australia; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Australia S. The incidence of accepted workers’ compensati on claims for mental stress in Australia. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Knauf MT, Schultz IZ. Current conceptual models of return to work. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return to work: from research to practice. Boston: Springer; 2016. p. 27–51.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Dasinger LK, Krause N, Deegan LJ, Brand RJ, Rudolph L. Physical workplace factors and return to work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2000;42(3):323–333.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):374–392.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McIntosh G, Frank J, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C, Hall H. Prognostic factors for time receiving workers’ compensation benefits in a cohort of patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(2):147–157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nastasia J, Tcaciuc R, Coutu M. Strategies for preventing prolonged disability in workers compensated for work related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic and comprehensive literature review. Montreal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stewart A, Polak E, Young R, Schultz I. Injured workers’ construction of expectations of return to work with sub-acute back pain: the role of perceived uncertainty. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fadyl J, McPherson K. Return to work after injury: a review of evidence regarding expectations and injury perceptions, and their influence on outcome. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(4):362–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Black O, Keegel T, Sim MR, Collie A, Smith P. 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. 2017;28(1):16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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):111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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):104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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):290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Volker D, Zijlstra-Vlasveld M, Brouwers E, Lomwel A, Feltz-Cornelis C. Return-to-work self-efficacy and actual return to work among long-term sick-listed employees. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(2):423–431.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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):725–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Huijs J, Koppes LLJ, Taris TW, Blonk RWB. Differences in predictors of return to work among long-term sick-listed employees with different self-reported reasons for sick leave. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(3):301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lagerveld SE, Brenninkmeijer V, Blonk RWB, Twisk J, Schaufeli WB. Predictive value of work-related self-efficacy change on RTW for employees with common mental disorders. Occup Environ Med. 2016;74(5):381–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Laisné F, Lecomte C, Corbière M. Biopsychosocial predictors of prognosis in musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature (corrected and republished). Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(22):1912–1941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Truchon M, Fillion L. Biopsychosocial determinants of chronic disability and low-back pain: a review. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10(2):117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Evanoff B, Dale AM, Descatha A. A conceptual model of musculoskeletal disorders for occupational health practitioners. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014;27(1):145–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dimitriadis C, LaMontagne AD, Lilley R, Hogg-Johnson S, Sim M, Smith P. Cohort profile: workers’ compensation in a changing Australian labour market: the return to work (RTW) study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e016366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Young AE, Viikari-Juntura E, Boot CRL, Chan C, de Porras DGR, Linton SJ. Workplace outcomes in work-disability prevention research: a review with recommendations for future research. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(4):434–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vogel N, Schandelmaier S, Zumbrunn T, Ebrahim S, de Boer ELW, Busse JW, et al. Return-to-work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011618.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Black O, Sim MR, Collie A, Smith P. A return-to-work self-efficacy scale for workers with psychological or musculoskeletal work-related injuries. Qual Quant. 2016;51(1):413–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Black O, Sim MR, Collie A, Smith P. Early-claim modifiable factors associated with return-to-work self-efficacy among workers injured at work: are there differences between psychological and musculoskeletal injuries? J Occup Environ Med. 2017;59(12):e257–e62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Breaugh JA. The measurement of work autonomy. Hum Relat. 1985;38(6):551–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012.

  33. Yu C. Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Los Angeles: University of California; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cancelliere C, Donovan J, Stochkendahl MJ, Biscardi M, Ammendolia C, Myburgh C, et al. Factors affecting return to work after injury or illness: best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews. Chiropr Man Ther. 2016;24:1–23.

    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):244–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project is 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. Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Monash University, Melbourne/Burwood, Australia

    Oliver Black, Malcolm R. Sim & Peter Smith

  2. Department of Management, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia

    Oliver Black

  3. Insurance Work and Health Group, Monash University, Melbourne/Burwood, 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. Malcolm R. Sim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Collie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. 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

Oliver Black, Malcolm Sim, Alexander Collie and Peter smith declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Black, O., Sim, M.R., Collie, A. et al. Differences Over Time in the Prognostic Effect of Return to Work Self-Efficacy on a Sustained Return to Work. J Occup Rehabil 29, 660–667 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-09824-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-09824-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation