IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0143330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Exploration of the Factors Considered When Forming Expectations for Returning to Work following Sickness Absence Due to a Musculoskeletal Condition

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda E Young
  • YoonSun Choi
  • Elyssa Besen

Abstract

Introduction: Workers’ own expectations for returning to work following a period of sickness absence have been found to be one of the best predictors of future work status; however, there is a limited understanding of why people expect what they do. The current study was undertaken with the aim of determining what people take into consideration when forming their expectations for returning to work. Methods: Thirty-four people (8 women, 26 men), who were off work due to a musculoskeletal condition, participated in one of 14 focus groups. Participants were aged 25 to 65 (M = 45, SD = 12.6), and all had been out of work for 3 months or less. Results: All participants reported expecting to return to work, with the most common timeframe being approximately 30 days (Range = 1 day-12 months). When explaining what they thought about when forming their expectations, participants referenced numerous considerations. Much of what was spoken about could be compartmentalized to reflect features of themselves, their condition, or their broader environmental contexts. Participant’s subjective experience of these features influenced his or her expectations. Prominent themes included concerns about employability, a desire to get back to normal, no job to go back to, mixed emotions, re-injury concerns, the judgments of workplace stakeholders, being needed by their employer, waiting for input, until the money runs out, and working out what was in their best interest. Conclusions: Indications are that many of the reported considerations are amenable to intervention, suggesting opportunities to assist workers in the process of returning to work.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda E Young & YoonSun Choi & Elyssa Besen, 2015. "An Exploration of the Factors Considered When Forming Expectations for Returning to Work following Sickness Absence Due to a Musculoskeletal Condition," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0143330
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143330
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143330&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0143330?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. MacKenzie, E.J. & Morris Jr., J.A. & Jurkovich, G.J. & Yasui, Y. & Cushing, B.M. & Burgess, A.R. & DeLateur, B.J. & McAndrew, M.P. & Swiontkowski, M.F., 1998. "Return to work following injury: The role of economic, social, and job- related factors," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(11), pages 1630-1637.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amanda E Young & YoonSun Choi, 2016. "Work-Related Factors Considered by Sickness-Absent Employees When Estimating Timeframes for Returning to Work," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard J. Butler & William G. Johnson, 2011. "Loss Reduction Through Worker Satisfaction: The Case of Workers’ Compensation," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Nathan N O’Hara & Marckenley Isaac & Gerard P Slobogean & Niek S Klazinga, 2020. "The socioeconomic impact of orthopaedic trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Sjöberg, Ola, 2017. "Positive welfare state dynamics? Sickness benefits and sickness absence in Europe 1997–2011," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 158-168.
    4. repec:mpr:mprres:8158 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Inna Petrunyk & Christian Pfeifer & Sebastian Fischer & Anita Wiemer, 2015. "Before-After Differences in Labor Market Outcomes for Participants in Medical Rehabilitation in Germany," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 135(4), pages 537-562.
    6. McLaren, Christopher F. & Reville, Robert T. & Seabury, Seth A., 2017. "How effective are employer return to work programs?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 58-73.
    7. Deborah Graefe & Gordon Jong & Dee May, 2006. "Work disability and migration in the early years of welfare reform," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 25(4), pages 353-368, August.
    8. McAllister, Susan & Derrett, Sarah & Audas, Rick & Herbison, Peter & Paul, Charlotte, 2013. "Do different types of financial support after illness or injury affect socio-economic outcomes? A natural experiment in New Zealand," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 93-102.
    9. Nan L. Maxwell & Nathan Wozny, "undated". "Risk Factors Associated with Disability Following Work-Related Injuries," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 3cd8cee9c4814af5a406f839c, Mathematica Policy Research.
    10. Changjae Lee & Byunghyun Lee & Ilyoung Choi & Jaekyeong Kim, 2023. "Exploring Determinants of Job Satisfaction: A Comparison Between Survey and Review Data," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0143330. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.