Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Psychosocial Factors Impacting Workplace Injury Rehabilitation: Evaluation of a Concise Screening Tool

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

Abstract

Purpose To determine whether the delayed recovery often observed in simple musculoskeletal injuries occurring at work is related to poor workplace and home social support. Method A four question psychosocial screening tool called the “How are you coping gauge?” (HCG) was developed. This tool was implemented as part of the initial assessment for all new musculoskeletal workplace injuries. Participants were excluded if they did not meet the strict criteria used to classify a musculoskeletal injury as simple. The HCG score was then compared to the participant’s number of days until return to full capacity (DTFC). It was hypothesised that those workers indicating a poorer level of workplace and home support would take longer time to return to full capacity. Results A sample of 254 participants (316 excluded) were included in analysis. Significant correlation (p < 0.001) was observed between HCG scores for self-reported work and home support and DTFC thereby confirming the hypothesis. Path analysis found workplace support to be a significant moderate-to-strong predictor of DTFC (−0.46). Conclusion A correlation was observed between delayed workplace injury recovery and poor perceived workplace social support. The HCG may be an effective tool for identifying these factors in musculoskeletal workplace injuries of a minor pathophysiological nature. There may be merit in tailoring injury rehabilitation towards addressing psychosocial factors early in the injury recovery process to assist with a more expedient return to full work capacity following simple acute musculoskeletal injury.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bailey TS, Dollard MF, McLinton SS, Richards, PAM. Psychosocial safety climate, psychosocial and physical factors in the aetiology of musculoskeletal disorder symptoms and workplace injury compensation claims. Work Stress. 2015;29(2):190–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Heymans MW, de Vet HCW, Knol DL, Bongers PM, Koes BW, Mechelen WV. Workers’ beliefs and expectations affect return to work over 12 months. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(4):685–695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dunstan DA, Covic T, Tyson GA. What leads to the expectation to return to work? insights from a theory of planned behavior (TPB) model of future work outcomes. Work. 2013;46(1):25–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cole DC, Mondloch MV, Hogg-Johnson S. Listening to injured workers: how recovery expectations predict outcomes—a prospective study. Can Med Assoc J. 2002;166(6):749–754.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Godges JJ, Anger MA, Zimmerman G, Delitto A. Effects of education on return-to-work status for people with fear-avoidance beliefs and acute low back pain. Phys Ther. 2008;88(2):231–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lysaght RM, Larmour-Trode S. An exploration of social support as a factor in the return-to-work process. Work. 2008;30(3):255–266.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoogendoorn WE, van Poppel MN, Bongers PM, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain. Spine. 2000;25(16):2114–2125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crisco JJ, Jokl P, Heinen GT, Connell MD, Panjabi MM. A muscle contusion injury model: biomechanics, physiology, and histology. Am J Sport Med. 1994;22(5):702–710.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Askling C, Saartok T, Thorstensson A. Type of acute hamstring strain affects flexibility, strength, and time to return to pre-injury level. Brit J Sport Med. 2006;40(1):40–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sullivan M, Feuerstein M, Gatchel R, Linton S, Pransky G. Integrating psychosocial and behavioral interventions to achieve optimal rehabilitation outcomes. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):475–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schultz IZ, Crook J, Berkowitz J, Milner R, Meloche GR. Predicting return to work after low back injury using the psychosocial risk for occupational disability instrument: a validation study. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(11):365–376.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nicholas MK, Linton SJ, Watson PJ, Main CJ. Early identification and management of psychological risk factors (“yellow flags”) in patients with low back pain: a reappraisal. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wall C, Ogloff JP, Morrissey S. The psychology of injured workers: health and cost of vocational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(4):513–528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grimmer-Somers K, Vipond N, Kumar S, Hall G. A review and critique of assessment instruments for patients with persistent pain. Journal of pain research. 2009;2(2):21–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jette DU, Halbert J, Iverson C, Micheli E, Shah P. Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther. 2009;89(2):125–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. WorkSafe Victoria. Clinical framework for the delivery of health services. Melbourne: WorkSafe Victoria; 2012. p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Linton SJ, Halldén K. Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. Clin J Pain. 1998;14(3):209–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dunstan DA, Covic T, Tyson GA, Lennie IG. Does the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire predict outcomes following a work-related compensable injury? Int J Rehabil Res. 2005;28(4):369–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arnetz BB, Sjögren B, Rydéhn B, Meisel R. Early workplace intervention for employees with musculoskeletal-related absenteeism: a prospective controlled intervention study. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(5):499–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Franche RL, Severin CN, Hogg-Johnson S, Côté P, Vidmar M, Lee H. The impact of early workplace-based return-to-work strategies on work absence duration: a 6-month longitudinal study following an occupational musculoskeletal injury. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(9):960–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Linton SJ, Nicholas M, MacDonald S. Development of a short form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. SPINE. 2011;36(22):1891–1895.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Järvinen TAH, Järvinen TLN, Kääriäinen M, Kalimo H, Järvinen M. Muscle injuries: biology and treatment. Am J Sport Med. 2005;33(5):745–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shain M, Kramer DM. Health promotion in the workplace: framing the concept; reviewing the evidence. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(7):643–648.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The “toxic dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):349–366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hockings RL, McAuley JH, Maher CG. A systematic review of the predictive ability of the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire. SPINE. 2008;33(15):E494–E500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Minden P. The importance of words: suggesting comfort rather than pain. Holist Nurs Pract. 2005;19(6):267–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Eck J, Richter M, Straube T, Miltner WHR, Weiss T. Affective brain regions are activated during the processing of pain-related words in migraine patients. PAIN. 2011;152(5):1104–1113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Richter M, Eck J, Straube T, Litner WHR, Weiss T. Do words hurt? Brain activation during the processing of pain-related words. PAIN. 2010;148(2):198–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hertling D, Kessler RM. Management of common musculoskeletal disorders: physical therapy principles and methods. 4th ed. Maryland: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dahlgren LA, Mohammed HO, Nixon AJ. Temporal expression of growth factors and matrix molecules in healing tendon lesions. J Orthopaed Res. 2005;23(1):84–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sharma P, Maffulli N. Basic biology of tendon injury and healing. Surg. 2005;3(5):309–316.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Schultz G, Mozingo D, Romanelli M, Claxton K. Wound healing and TIME; new concepts and scientific applications. Wound Repair Regen. 2005;13(s4):S1–S11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Velnar T, Bailey T, Smrkolj V. The wound healing process: an overview of the cellular and molecular mechanisms. J Int Med Res. 2009;37(5):1528–1542.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: Implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 Suppl):S2–S15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zatzick D, Jurkovich GJ, Rivara FP, Wang J, Fan MY, Joesch J, Mackenzie E. A national US study of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and work and functional outcomes after hospitalization for traumatic injury. Ann Surg. 2008;248(3):429–423.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Safe Work Australia. Australian workers’ compensation statistics 2012-13. Canberra: Safe Work Australia; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Arbuckle JL. IBM SPSS AMOS 21 user’s guide. Armonk: IBM Corporation; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cohen J. Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Taris TW, Kompier M. Challenges in longitudinal designs in occupational health psychology. Scand J Work Environ Health 2003;29(1):1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Karademas EC. Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: the mediating role of optimism. Pers Indiv Differ. 2006;40(6):1281–1290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Return to Work Act 2014 (SA).

  43. ReturnToWorkSA. Physiotherapy fee schedule and policy. Adelaide (AU): ReturnToWorkSA; 2016. p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Smith GS, Huang YH, Ho M, Chen PY. The relationship between safety climate and injury rates across industries: the need to adjust for injury hazards. Accid Anal Prev. 2006;38(3):556–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gillen M, Yen IH, Trupin L, Swig L, Rugulies R, Mullen K, Font A, Burian D, Ryan G, Janowitz I. The association of socioeconomic status and psychosocial and physical workplace factors with musculoskeletal injury in hospital workers. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(4):245–260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Franche R-L, Krause N. Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors. J Occup Rehabil. 2002;12(4):233–256.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Shamian J, O’Brien-Pallas L, Thomson D, Alksnis C, Steven Kerr M. Nurse absenteeism, stress and workplace injury: what are the contributing factors and what can/should be done about it? Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2003;23(8/9):81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rogers E, Wiatrowksi WJ. Injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among older workers. Mon Labor Rev. 2005;128(10):24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hermes GL, Rosenthal L, Montag A, McClintock MK. Social isolation and the inflammatory response: sex differences in the enduring effects of a prior stressor. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2006;290(2):R273–R82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Detillion CE, Craft TKS, Glasper ER, Prendergast BJ, DeVries AC. Social facilitation of wound healing. Psychoneuroendocrino. 2004;29(8):1004–1011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL. Enhancing the interpretation of significant findings: the role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report. 2004;9(4):770–792.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher. 2004;33(7):14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kirsh B, Slack T, King CA. The nature and impact of stigma towards injured workers. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(2):143–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Beardwood BA, Kirsh B, Clark NJ. Victims twice over: perceptions and experiences of injured workers. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(1):30–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Soklaridis S, Ammendolia C, Cassidy D. Looking upstream to understand low back pain and return to work: psychosocial factors as the product of system issues. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(9):1557–1566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Chan ANW. Social support for improved work integration: perspectives from Canadian social purpose enterprises. Soc Enterp J. 2015;11(1):47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

All authors declare that no funding was obtained in formation of this body of work.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Corporate Health Group, 69 Henley Beach Road, Mile End, PO Box 562, Torrensville, SA, 5031, Australia

    Sareen McLinton & Martin van der Linden

  2. Asia Pacific Centre for Work Health and Safety, University of South Australia, IPC-MAG-11, UniSA Magill Campus, Lorne Avenue, Magill, SA, 5072, Australia

    Sarven Savia McLinton

Authors
  1. Sareen McLinton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarven Savia McLinton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin van der Linden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sareen McLinton.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Conflict of interest

Author Sareen McLinton, Sarven Savia McLinton and Martin van der Linden declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This study was submitted to the University of South Australia for ethics review prior to commencement. Our application was reviewed and was considered exempt based on its study design. Therefore approval was given to undertake data collection.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLinton, S., McLinton, S.S. & van der Linden, M. Psychosocial Factors Impacting Workplace Injury Rehabilitation: Evaluation of a Concise Screening Tool. J Occup Rehabil 28, 121–129 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9701-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9701-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation