Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Workers’ Worries, Pain, Psychosocial Factors, and Margin of Manoeuvre, in Relation to Outcomes in a Return-to-Work Program: An Exploratory Study

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

Abstract

Purpose

To explore the intensity and variation of workers’ worries, pain, psychosocial factors, and margin of manoeuvre before and after a return-to-work program, and identified the psychosocial factors associated with non-return to work at the end of the rehabilitation program.

Methods

A pre-post study design was used. A convenience sample of 80 workers starting a return-to-work program and having a compensated musculoskeletal injury that caused an absence of more than three months from their regular work was recruited. Data were collected at baseline and at the end of the rehabilitation program on the nature of the worries and maintenance factors defined in Dugas’ generalized anxiety and worry model, using validated questionnaires. The margin of manoeuvre was assessed by the treating occupational therapist. A series of descriptive analyses were performed, as well as Generalized Estimating Equations analyses.

Results

Workers’ worries were work-related or disability-related 83% of the time at baseline. These worries were essentially based on the situation then occurring at work 90% of the time. For the Generalized Estimating Equations analyses on work status, the final model was significant, explaining 54% of the variance in non-return to work (Pseudo R2 = 0.54; p = 0.0001). Workers were 8.52 times less likely to return to work when the margin of manoeuvre was insufficient, and twice as likely not to return to work in the presence of intense worry. Worries were significantly associated with insufficient margin of manoeuvre.

Conclusion

A strong association between workers’ lack of margin of manoeuvre at work and their worries about their return to work, and poor work outcomes, supports the importance of the worker-environment interaction in rehabilitation programs.

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

Data Availability

The Ethics Committee will impose restrictions on access to the datasets generated and analyzed during the current study.

Notes

  1. At the end of the training, the occupational therapists were required to evaluate the margin of manoeuvre at work using a standard case study. A minimum of 80% agreement with the trainer was required for the training to be considered successful.

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders & ergonomics. 2020. [Online]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/health-strategies/musculoskeletal-disorders/index.html.

  2. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the global burden of disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. 2021;396(10267):2006–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (IMHA). IMHA strategic plan 2014–2018 enhancing musculoskeletal, skin and oral health report. 2019. [Online]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48830.html.

  4. Power JD, Perruccio AV, Paterson JM, Canizares M, Veillette C, Coyte PC, Badley EM, Mahomed NN, Rampersaud YR. Healthcare utilization and costs for musculoskeletal disorders in Ontario, Canada. J Rheumatol. 2022;49(7):740–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. INSPQ Centre d’expertise et de référence en santé publique. Portrait des troubles musculo-squelettiques d’origine non traumatique liés au travail: résultats de l’Enquête québécoise sur la santé de la population [Public health expertise and reference centre. Portrait of work-related non-traumatic musculoskeletal disorders: results of the Quebec population health survey, 2014–2015, 2014–2015. 2020. [Online]. Available from: https://www.inspq.qc.ca/publications/2632.

  6. Boucher A, Duguay P, Busque MA. Analyse des différences de durées d’indemnisation selon le sexe et le groupe d’âge. [Analysis of differences in benefit durations by gender and age group] 2019. [Online]. Available from: https://www.irsst.qc.ca/publications-et-outils/publication/i/101022/n/differences-indemnisation-sexe-age.

  7. Nicolakakis N, Tissot SS, Lippel F, Vézina K, Major M, Dionne ME, Messing CE, Turcot K, Gilbert A. Les troubles musculo-squelettiques reconnus par La Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail de 2010 à 2012: Qui est à risque? [Musculoskeletal disorders recognized by the Workers Compensation Board from 2010 to 2012: Who’s at risk?] Québec: Institut national de santé publique du; 2021.

  8. Coutu MF, Durand MJ, Marchand A, Labrecque ME, Berbiche D, Cadieux G. Factors associated with generalized anxiety in workers undergoing work rehabilitation for persistent musculoskeletal pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(19):1599–607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eccleston C, Crombez G. Worry and chronic pain: a misdirected problem solving model. Pain. 2007;132(3):233–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Borkovec TD, Robinson E, Pruzinsky T, DePree JA. Preliminary exploration of worry: some characteristics and processes. Behav Res Ther. 1983;21(1):9–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dugas M, Freeston M, Provencher M, Lachance S, Ladouceur R, Gosselin P. Le Questionnaire sur l’Inquiétude et l’Anxiété. Validation dans des échantillons non cliniques et cliniques [The worry and anxiety questionnaire: validation in non-clinical and clinical samples]. J De thérapie Comportementale et Cogn. 2001;11(1):31–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dowling A, Slungaard E, Heneghan NR. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for neck pain in military aircrew: qualitative interviews to inform design and content. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):e039488.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Melzer AC, Iguti AM. Working conditions and musculoskeletal pain among Brazilian pottery workers. Cad Saude Publica. 2010;26(3):492–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Milani D, Alexandre NMC, Campos J, Hogg-Johnson S. Psychometric properties of the obstacles to return-to-work questionnaire in a Brazilian context. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(4):530–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nagasu M, Sakai K, Ito A, Tomita S, Temmyo Y, Ueno M, Miyagi S. Prevalence and risk factors for low back pain among professional cooks working in school lunch services. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ohlsson K, Hansson GA, Balogh I, Strömberg U, Pålsson B, Nordander C, Rylander L, Skerfving S. Disorders of the neck and upper limbs in women in the fish processing industry. Occup Environ Med. 1994;51(12):826–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Durand MJ, Vezina N, Baril R, Loisel P, Richard MC, Ngomo S. Margin of manoeuvre indicators in the workplace during the rehabilitation process: a qualitative analysis. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(2):194–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Durand MJ, Vézina N, Baril R, Loisel P, Richard MC, Ngomo S. Relationship between the margin of manoeuvre and the return to work after a long-term absence due to a musculoskeletal disorder: an exploratory study. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(13–14):1245–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S31–s34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Loisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Vezina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, Lariviere C, Tremblay C. Disability prevention - new paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Disease Manage Health Outcomes. 2001;9(7):351–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Durand M-J, Berthelette D, Loisel P, Imbeau D. Étude de la Fidélité de l’implantation d’un programme de réadaptation au travail auprès de travailleurs de la construction ayant une dorsolombalgie [Fidelity study of the implementation of a work rehabilitation program for construction workers with back pain]. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé. 2012. https://doi.org/10.4000/pistes.763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Durand MJ, Vachon B, Loisel P, Berthelette D. Constructing the program impact theory for an evidence-based work rehabilitation program for workers with low back pain. Work. 2003;21(3):233–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Durand MJ, Vezina N, Richard MC. Concept of margin of manoeuvre in return to work. In: Schultz I, Gatchel R, editors. Handbook of return to work. Handbooks in Health, Work, and Disability, vol 1. Boston, MA: Springer; 2016. P. 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7627-7_3

  24. Allaire S, Gosselin P, Ladouceur R. Présentation des types d’inquiétudes chez une population non clinique [Types of concern in a non-clinical population]. Communication presented at: XXVIe Annual congress of the Société Québécoise pour la Recherche en Psychologie. Montréal. Québec. 2003.

  25. Gosselin P, Cloutier M, Vaillancourt L, Lemay M, Perron G, Ladouceur R. Différences individuelles Au Niveau Des Croyances erronées à l’égard Des inquiétudes [Individual differences in erroneous beliefs about concerns]. Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement. 2006;38(1):41–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Deschênes SS, Dugas MJ. Sudden gains in the cognitive-behavioral treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Cogn Therapy Res. 2013;37(4):805–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gosselin P, Ladouceur R, Evers A, Laverdière A, Routhier S, Tremblay-Picard M. Evaluation of intolerance of uncertainty: development and validation of a new self-report measure. J Anxiety Disord. 2008;22(8):1427–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gosselin P, Ladouceur R, Langlois F, Freeston M, Dugas M, Bertrand J. Développement Et validation d’un nouvel instrument évaluant les croyances erronées à l’égard des inquiétudes [Development and validation of a new instrument to evaluate erroneous beliefs about worries]. Revue Européenne De Psychologie Appliquée. 2003;53(3–4):199–211.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gosselin P, Pelletier O, Bertrand J, Ladouceur R. Questionnaire d’attitude face aux problèmes [Negative Problem Orientation Questionnaire]. Québec: École de psychologie de l’Université Laval; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gosselin P, Dugas MJ, Ladouceur R. Inquiétude et résolution de problèmes sociaux: le rôle de l’attitude négative face au problème [Worry and social problem-solving: the role of the negative problem attitude]. J de Thérapie Comportementale et Cogn. 2002;12(2):49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gosselin P, Ladouceur R, Pelletier O. Évaluation de l’attitude d’un individu face aux problèmes de vie: Le questionnaire d’attitude face aux problèmes (QAP) [Assessing an individual's attitude toward life problems: The Problem Attitude Questionnaire (PAQ)]. J de Thérapie Comportementale et Cogn. 2005;15(4):141–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gosselin P, Langlois F, Freeston MH, Ladouceur R, Dugas MJ, Pelletier O. Le questionnaire d’évitement cognitif (QEC): développement et validation auprès d’adultes et d’adolescents [The Cognitive Avoidance Questionnaire (CAQ): development and validation with adults and adolescents]. J de Thérapie Comportementale et Cogn. 2002;12(1):24–37.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P. Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine. 2000;25(24):3140–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM, Fisher LD. Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures. Pain. 1999;83(2):157–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pengel LH, Refshauge KM, Maher CG. Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back Pain. Spine. 2004;29(8):879–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Truchon M, Fillion L, Gelinas C. Validation of a french canadian version of the organizational policies and practices (OPP) questionnaire. Work A J Prev Assess Rehabilit. 2003;20(2):111–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Karasek RA, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The job content questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998;3(4):322–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Karasek RA, Theorell T. Healthy work: stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Larocque B, Brisson C, Blanchette C. Cohérence interne, validité factorielle et validité discriminante de la traduction française des échelles de demande psychologique et de latitude décisionnelle du « Job Content Questionnaire » de Karasek [Internal consistency, factorial validity and discriminant validity of the French translation of Karasek's Job Content Questionnaire psychological demand and decision latitude scales]. Revue d’épidémiologie et de santé Publique. 1998;46(5):371–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Durand MJ, Vézina N, Baril R, Loisel P, Richard MC, Ngomo S. La marge de manoeuvre de travailleurs pendant et après un programme de retour progressif au travail [Workers’ margin of maneuver during and after a gradual return-to-work program]. Québec: Institut de Recherche Robert Sauvé en Santé et Sécurité du Travail; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1373–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Marois E, Durand M-J. Does participation in interdisciplinary work rehabilitation programme influence return to work obstacles and predictive factors? Disabil Rehabilit. 2009;31(12):994–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gravetter FJ, Wallnau LB. Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. 6th ed. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Maxwell SE, Delaney HD. Designing experiments and analysing data. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence erlbaum associates; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Blackwell E, De Leon M, Miller CF. Applying mixed regression models to the analysis of repeated-measures data in psychosomatic medicine. Psychosom Med. 2006;68(6):870–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Freeston MH, Fournier S, Dugas MJ, Ladouceur R. Categorization grid for worries. Unpublished; 1996.

  47. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG. Advanced topic: the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method: in categorical data analysis: using the sas system. Cary: SAS Institute; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wolfinger R, Chang M. Comparing the SAS GLM and MIXED procedures for repeated measures. Cary: SAS Institute Inc: International; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Iversen VM, Vasseljen O, Mork PJ, Gismervik S, Bertheussen GF, Salvesen Ø, Fimland MS. Resistance band training or general exercise in multidisciplinary rehabilitation of low back pain? A randomized trial. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28(9):2074–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jensen IB, Bergström G, Ljungquist T, Bodin L. A 3-year follow-up of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for back and neck pain. Pain. 2005;115(3):273–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sloots M, Scheppers EF, van de Weg FB, Dekker JH, Bartels EA, Geertzen JH, Dekker J. Higher dropout rate in non-native patients than in native patients in rehabilitation in the Netherlands. Int J Rehabil Res. 2009;32(3):232–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Truchon M, Fillion L. Biopsychosocial determinants of chronic disability and low-back pain: a review. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10(2):117–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Krause N, Frank J, 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 

  54. Wells R, Moore A, Potvin J, Norman R. Assessment of risk factors for development of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (RSI). Appl Ergon. 1994;25(3):157–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Baril R, Berthelette D. Les composantes et les déterminants organisationnels des interventions de maintien d’emploi en entreprises [Organizational components and determinants of job retention interventions in companies]. Québec: Institut de recherche en santé et en sécurité du travail du Québec; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Bigos SJ, Battie MC, Spengler DM, Fisher LD, Fordyce WE, Hansson TH, Nachemson AL, Wortley MD. A prospective study of work perceptions and psychosocial factors affecting the report of back injury. Spine. 1991;16(1):1–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pransky G, Shaw W, McLellan R. Employer attitudes, training, and return-to-work outcomes: a pilot study. Assist Technol. 2001;13(2):131–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brooker AS, Cole DC, Hogg-Johnson S, Smith J, Frank JW. Modified work: prevalence and characteristics in a sample of workers with soft-tissue injuries. J Occup Environ Med. 2001;43(3):276–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Durand MJ, Sylvain C, Fassier JB, Tremblay D, Shaw W, Anema JR, Loisel P, Richard MC, Bernier M. Troubles musculosquelettiques – revue réaliste sur les bases théoriques des programmes de réadaptation incluant le milieu de travail [Musculoskeletal disorders - a realist review on the theoretical basis of rehabilitation programs including the workplace]. Québec: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Cullen K, Irvin E, Collie A, Clay F, Gensby U, Jennings P, Hogg-Johnson S, Kristman V, Laberge M, McKenzie D, Newnam S, Palagyi A, Ruseckaite R, Sheppard D, Shourie S, Steenstra I, Van Eerd D, Amick B. 550 Workplace- and system-based interventions on return-to-work and recovery for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2018;75(Suppl 2):A549-9.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Costa-Black KM, Cheng AS, Li M, Loisel P. The practical application of theory and research for preventing work disability: a new paradigm for occupational rehabilitation services in China? J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(Suppl 1):S15–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nicholas MK, Linton SJ, Watson PJ, Main CJ, Group DotFW. Early identification and management of psychological risk factors (yellow flags) in patients with low back pain: a reappraisal. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):737–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All participants are thanked for their contribution to the study. This research would not have been possible without the financial support of the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travail (grant #2013-0041).

Funding

This study was supported by the Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Action in Work Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation (CAPRIT), Université de Sherbrooke – Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Marie-Élise Labrecque & Sara Pettigrew

  2. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke – Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Djamal Berbiche, Marie-Élise Labrecque & Sara Pettigrew

  3. Centre de recherche Charles-Le Moyne (CRCLM), Université de Sherbrooke – Longueuil Campus, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Djamal Berbiche, Marie-Élise Labrecque & Sara Pettigrew

  4. Department of Psychology, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, ON, Canada

    Fergal O’Hagan

  5. Department of Psychology, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 Boulevard de l’Université, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    Patrick Gosselin

  6. Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), 505 Boulevard De Maisonneuve Ouest, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Iuliana Nastasia

  7. Elderly, Neurostimulation and Pain Research Group, Research Centre on Aging, 1036 Rue Belvédère Sud, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    Martine Bordeleau

  8. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 Boulevard de l’Université, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    Martine Bordeleau

Authors
  1. Marie-France Coutu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-José Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fergal O’Hagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Gosselin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Iuliana Nastasia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Djamal Berbiche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marie-Élise Labrecque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sara Pettigrew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Martine Bordeleau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MFC, MJD, PG, FOH, IN: contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by MEL, SP and MFC. Data analysis were performed by DB, MEL, SP and MFC. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MFC and MB and all other authors commented versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-France Coutu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the CIUSSS de l’Estrie-CHUS (No. 2014-745).

Consent to participant

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coutu, MF., Durand, MJ., O’Hagan, F. et al. Workers’ Worries, Pain, Psychosocial Factors, and Margin of Manoeuvre, in Relation to Outcomes in a Return-to-Work Program: An Exploratory Study. J Occup Rehabil (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-023-10155-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-023-10155-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation