Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Employer Perspectives on Their Supportive Role in Accommodating Workers with Disabilities to Promote Sustainable RTW: A Qualitative Study

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

Abstract

Purpose

Employers play an important role in facilitating sustainable return to work (RTW) by workers with disabilities. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how employers who were successful in retaining workers with disabilities at work fulfilled their supportive role, and which facilitators were essential to support these workers throughout the RTW process.

Methods

We conducted a semi-structured interview study among 27 employers who had experience in retaining workers with disabilities within their organization. We explored the different phases of RTW, from the onset of sick leave until the period, after 2-years of sick-leave, and when they can apply for disability benefit. We analyzed data by means of thematic analysis.

Results

We identified three types of employer support: (1) instrumental (offering work accommodations), (2) emotional (encouragement, empathy, understanding) and (3) informational (providing information, setting boundaries). We identified three facilitators of employer support (at organizational and supervisor levels): (1) good collaboration, including (in)formal contact and (in)formal networks; (2) employer characteristics, including supportive organizational culture and leadership skills; and (3) worker characteristics, including flexibility and self-control.

Conclusions

Employers described three different possible types of support for the worker with disabilities: instrumental, emotional, and informational. The type and intensity of employer support varies during the different phases, which is a finding that should be further investigated. Good collaboration and flexibility of both employer and worker were reported as facilitators of optimal supervisor/worker interaction during the RTW process, which may show that sick-listed workers and their supervisors have a joint responsibility for the RTW process. More insight is needed on how this supervisor/worker interaction develops during 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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. OECD. Sickness, Disability and Work - A Synthesis of Findings across OECD Countries. 2010. 1–556 p.

  2. Burkhauser R, Daly M, Ziebarth N. Protecting working-age people with disabilities: experiences of four industrialized nations. J Labour Mark Res. 2016;49:367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Clayton S, Barr B, Nylen L, Burstrom B, Thielen K, Diderichsen F, et al. Effectiveness of return-to-work interventions for disabled people: a systematic review of government initiatives focused on changing the behaviour of employers. Eur J Public Health. 2012;22(3):434–439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Böheim R, Leoni T. Sickness and disability policies: reform paths in OECD countries between 1990 and 2014. Int J Soc Welf. 2018;27(2):168–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Organization WH. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health World Health Organization Geneva ICF ii WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. 2001.

  6. Corbière M, Negrini A, Dewa CS. Mental health problems and mental disorders: Linked determinants to work participation and work functioning. In: Handbook of Work Disability: Prevention and Management. Springer New York; 2013. p. 267–288.

  7. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Pransky G, Nicholas MK, Anema JR, Linton SJ. Employer policies and practices to manage and prevent disability: foreword to the special issue. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(4):394–398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. MacDonald-Wilson KL, Fabian ES, Dong S. Best practices in developing reasonable accommodations in the workplace: findings based on the research literature. Rehabil Prof. 2008;16(4):221–232.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Negrini A, Corbière M, Lecomte T, Coutu M-F, Nieuwenhuijsen K, St-Arnaud L, et al. How can supervisors contribute to the return to work of employees who have experienced depression? J Occup Rehabil. 2017;28(8):279–288.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mansfield E, Stergiou-Kita M, Kirsh B, Colantonio A. After the storm: the social relations of return to work following electrical injury. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(9):1183–1197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Kristman V, Boot C, Sanderson K, Sinden K, Williams-Whitt K. Implementing best practice models of return to work. In: Handbook of Disability, work and health. 2020. p. 1–25.

  13. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Verbeek AM, De Boer EM, Blonk RWB. Supervisory behaviour as a predictor of return to work in employees absent from work due to mental health problems. Occup Env Med. 2004;61(10):817–823.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gignac MAM, Kristman V, Smith PM, Beaton DE, Badley EM, Ibrahim S, et al. Are there differences in workplace accommodation needs, use and unmet needs among older workers with arthritis, diabetes and no chronic conditions? Examining the role of health and work context. Work Aging Retire. 2018;4(4):381–398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Durand M-J, Corbiere M, Coutu M-F, Reinharz D, Albert V. A review of best work-absence management and return-to-work practices for workers with musculoskeletal or common mental disorders. Work. 2014;48(4):579–589.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nastasia I, Coutu M-F, Rives R, Dubé J, Gaspard S, Quilicot A. Role and responsibilities of supervisors in the sustainable return to work of workers following a work-related musculoskeletal disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2021;31(1):107–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stahl C, Edvardsson Stiwne E. Narratives of sick leave, return to work and job mobility for people with common mental disorders in Sweden. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(3):543–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Corbiere M, Samson E, Negrini A, St-Arnaud L, Durand M-J, Coutu M-F, et al. Factors perceived by employees regarding their sick leave due to depression. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(6):511–519.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dionne CE, Bourbonnais R, Fremont P, Rossignol M, Stock SR, Laperriere E. Obstacles to and facilitators of return to work after work-disabling back pain: the workers’ perspective. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(2):280–289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Holmgren K, Synneve ·, Ivanoff D. Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:93–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nastasia I, Coutu M-F, Rives R, Dubé J, Gaspard S, Quilicot A. Role and responsibilities of supervisors in the sustainable return to work of workers following a work-related musculoskeletal disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2020;31:107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tiedtke CM, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Frings-Dresen MHW, De Boer AGEM, Greidanus MA, Tamminga SJ, et al. Employers’ experience of employees with cancer: trajectories of complex communication. J Cancer Surviv. 2017;11(5):562–577.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. van Beurden KM, Joosen MCW, Terluin B, van Weeghel J, van der Klink JJL, Brouwers EPM. Use of a mental health guideline by occupational physicians and associations with return to work in workers sick-listed due to common mental disorders: a retrospective cohort study. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;40(22):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Government of the Netherlands. Wet verbetering poortwachter [Internet]; 2008 [cited 2021 May 13]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013063/2008-11-01.

  25. Government of the Netherlands. Wet werk en inkomen naar arbeidsvermogen (Work and Income Act) [internet]; 2005 [cited 2022 January 4]. Available from: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0019057/2020-03-19.

  26. Everhardt TP, de Jong PR. Return to work after long term sickness. Economist (Leiden). 2011;159(3):361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Muijzer A, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JHB, Brouwer S. Influence of efforts of employer and employee on return-to-work process and outcomes. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(4):513–519.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. In: Encyclopedia of critical psychology. Springer New York; 2014. p. 1947–1952.

  29. Jansen J, van Ooijen R, Koning PWC, Boot CRL, Brouwer S. The role of the employer in supporting work participation of workers with disabilities: a systematic literature review using an interdisciplinary approach. J Occup Rehabil. 2021;31(4):1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dong S, Macdonald-Wilson KL, Fabian E. Development of the reasonable accommodation factor survey: results and implications. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2010;53(3):153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Seiger CP, Wiese BS. Social support, unfulfilled expectations, and affective well-being on return to employment. J Marriage Fam. 2011;73(2):446–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kärkkäinen R, Kinni RL, Saaranen T, Räsänen K. Supervisors managing sickness absence and supporting return to work of employees with burnout: a membership categorization analysis. Cogent Psychol. 2018;5(1):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Corbière M, Mazaniello-Chézol M, Bastien MF, Wathieu E, Bouchard R, Panaccio A, et al. Stakeholders’ role and actions in the return-to-work process of workers on sick-leave due to common mental disorders: a scoping review. J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30:381–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Greidanus MA, Tamminga SJ, de Rijk AE, Frings-Dresen MHW, de Boer AGEM. What employer actions are considered most important for the return to work of employees with cancer? A Delphi study among employees and employers. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(2):406–422.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Petersen KS, Momsen AH, Stapelfeldt CM, Nielsen CV. Reintegrating employees undergoing cancer treatment into the workplace: a qualitative study of employer and co-worker perspectives. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(4):764–772.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Graff HJ, Deleu NW, Christiansen P, Rytter HM. Facilitators of and barriers to return to work after mild traumatic brain injury: a thematic analysis. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2021;31(9):1349–1373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dunstan DA, Mortelmans K, Tjulin A, Maceachen E. The role of co-workers in the return-to-work process. Int J Disabil Manag. 2015;10(2):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dunstan DA, Maceachen E. A theoretical model of co-worker responses to work reintegration processes. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(2):189–198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tjulin Å, MacEachen E. The importance of workplace social relations in the return to work process: a missing piece in the return to work puzzle? In: Handbook of return to work. 2016. p. 81–97.

  40. Tiedtke C, Dierckx de Casterle B, Donceel P, de Rijk A. Workplace support after breast cancer treatment: recognition of vulnerability. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(19):1770–1776.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gray S, Sheehan L, Lane T, A J, Collie A. Concerns about claiming, postclaim support, and return to work planning: the workplace’s impact on return to work. J Occup Environ Med. 2019;61(4):139–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Liebman JB, Luttmer EFP. Would people behave differently if they better understood social security? Evidence from a field experiment. Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2015;7(1):275–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jetha A, Yanar B, Lay AM, Mustard C. Work disability management communication bottlenecks within large and complex public service organizations: a sociotechnical systems study. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(4):754–763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. De Rijk A, Amir Z, Cohen M, Furlan T, Godderis L, Knezevic B, et al. The challenge of return to work in workers with cancer: employer priorities despite variation in social policies related to work and health. J Cancer Surviv. 2020;14:188–199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McGuire C, Kristman VL, Shaw WS, Loisel P, Reguly P, Williams-Whitt K, et al. Supervisors’ perceptions of organizational policies are associated with their likelihood to accommodate back-injured workers. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(4):346–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J. Return-to-work: the importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work. 2001;17(1):11–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kosny A, MacEachen E, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The role of health care providers in long term and complicated workers’ compensation claims. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(4):582–590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Williams-Whitt K, Taras D. Disability and the performance paradox: can social capital bridge the divide? Br J Ind Relat. 2010;48(3):534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Johnston V, Way K, Long MH, Wyatt M, Gibson L, Shaw WS. Supervisor competencies for supporting return to work: a mixed-methods study. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):3–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Coole C, Drummond A, Watson PJ. Individual work support for employed patients with low back pain: a randomized controlled pilot trial. Clin Rehabil. 2013;27(1):40–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Holmlund L, Hellman T, Engblom M, Kwak L, Sandman L, Törnkvist L, et al. Coordination of return-to-work for employees on sick leave due to common mental disorders: facilitators and barriers. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;1–9.

  52. Bosma AR, Boot CRL, Schaafsma FG, Anema JR. Facilitators, barriers and support needs for staying at work with a chronic condition: a focus group study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Bosma A, Boot C, De Maaker M, Boeije H, Schoonmade L, Anema J, et al. Exploring self-control of workers with a chronic condition: a qualitative synthesis. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2019;28(5):653–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hartke RJ, Trierweiler R. Survey of survivors’ perspective on return to work after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2015;22(5):326–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Boot C, van den Heuvel S, Bültmann U, de Boer E, Angela G, Koppes L, et al. Work adjustments in a representative sample of employees with a chronic disease in the Netherlands. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(2):200–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Nicole Snippen, who independently coded three transcripts.

Funding

This work was supported by Instituut Gak, Grant Number 2018-933.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    J. Jansen & S. Brouwer

  2. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    C. R. L. Boot

  3. Department of Health Sciences, Applied Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    M. A. Alma

Authors
  1. J. Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. R. L. Boot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Alma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Brouwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation were performed by Joke Jansen, Cécile Boot and Sandra Brouwer. Data collection was performed by Joke Jansen. The analysis were performed by Joke Jansen and Manna Alma. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Joke Jansen and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Jansen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors JJ, CB, MA, and SB have declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was received from the Medical Ethical Review Board (METc) of the University Medical Center Groningen.

Consent to Participate

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

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

Jansen, J., Boot, C.R.L., Alma, M.A. et al. Exploring Employer Perspectives on Their Supportive Role in Accommodating Workers with Disabilities to Promote Sustainable RTW: A Qualitative Study. J Occup Rehabil 32, 1–12 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-10019-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-10019-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation