| 1. |
- Main, Chris J., et al.
(författare)
-
Implementation Science and Employer Disability Practices : Embedding Implementation Factors in Research Designs
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of occupational rehabilitation. - : Springer-Verlag New York. - 1053-0487 .- 1573-3688. ; 26:4, s. 448-464
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: For work disability research to have an impact on employer policies and practices it is important for such research to acknowledge and incorporate relevant aspects of the workplace. The goal of this article is to summarize recent theoretical and methodological advances in the field of Implementation Science, relate these to research of employer disability management practices, and recommend future research priorities.Methods: The authors participated in a year-long collaboration culminating in an invited 3-day conference, “Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability”, held October 14–16, 2015, in Hopkinton, MA, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience.Results: A 4-phase implementation model including both outer and inner contexts was adopted as the most appropriate conceptual framework, and aligned well with the set of process evaluation factors described in both the work disability prevention literature and the grey literature. Innovative interventions involving disability risk screening and psychologically-based interventions have been slow to gain traction among employers and insurers. Research recommendations to address this are : (1) to assess organizational culture and readiness for change in addition to individual factors; (2) to conduct process evaluations alongside controlled trials; (3) to analyze decision-making factors among stakeholders; and (4) to solicit input from employers and insurers during early phases of study design.Conclusions: Future research interventions involving workplace support and involvement to prevent disability may be more feasible for implementation if organizational decision-making factors are imbedded in research designs and interventions are developed to take account of these influences.
|
|
| 3. |
- Young, Amanda E., et al.
(författare)
-
Workplace Outcomes in Work-Disability Prevention Research : A Review with Recommendations for Future Research
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of occupational rehabilitation. - New York, USA : Springer. - 1053-0487 .- 1573-3688. ; 26:4, s. 434-447
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Outcome assessment is a central issue in work disability prevention research. The goal of this paper was to (1) ascertain the most salient workplace outcomes; (2) evaluate the congruence between business and science perspectives; (3) illustrate new perspectives on assessing longitudinal outcomes; and (4) provide recommendations for advancing outcome evaluation in this area of research.Methods: The authors participated in a year-long collaboration that culminated in a sponsored 3-day conference, "Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability", held October 14-16, 2015, in Hopkinton, MA, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience.Results: Numerous workplace work-disability prevention outcome measures were identified. Analysis indicated that their applicability varied depending on the type of work disability the worker was experiencing. For those who were working, but with health-related work limitations (Type 1), predominant outcomes were measures of productivity, presenteeism, and work-related limitations. For those who were off work due to a health condition (Type 2), predominant outcomes were measures of time off work, supervisor/employee interactions, and return-to-work (RTW) preparation. For those who had returned to work (Type 3), predominant outcomes were measures of presenteeism, time until RTW, percentage of work resumption, employment characteristics, stigma, work engagement, co-worker interactions, and sustained or durable RTW. For those who had withdrawn from the labor force (Type 4), predominant outcomes were cost and vocational status.Discussion: Currently available measures provide a good basis to use more consistent outcomes in disability prevention in the future. The research area would also benefit from more involvement of employers as stakeholders, and multilevel conceptualizations of disability outcomes.
|
|
