Implementation Science and Employer Disability Practices: Embedding Implementation Factors in Research Designs

Article English OPEN
Main, Chris J. ; Nicholas, Michael K. ; Shaw, William S. ; Tetrick, Lois E. ; Ehrhart, Mark G. ; Pransky, Glenn (2016)
  • Publisher: Springer US
  • Journal: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, volume 26, issue 4, pages 448-464 (issn: 1053-0487, eissn: 1573-3688)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1007/s10926-016-9677-7, pmc: PMC5104783
  • Subject: Workplace interventions | Rehabilitation | Disability prevention | Implementation factors | Research priorities | Occupational Therapy | Article | R1

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.
  • References (129)
    129 references, page 1 of 13

    1. Young AE, Viikari-Juntura E, Boot CR, Chan C, Gimeno Ruiz De Porras D, Linton SJ et al. Workplace outcomes in workdisability prevention research: a review with recommendations for future research. J Occup Rehabil. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10926- 016-9675-9.

    2. Waddell G, Burton AK. Is work good for your health and wellbeing?. London: The Stationery Office; 2006.

    3. Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jane´-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Bloom L, Fathima S et al. The global economic burden of noncommunicable diseases. World Economic Forum; 2011.

    4. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Pransky G, Nicholas MK, Anema JR, Linton SJ et al. Employer policies and practices to manage and prevent disability: foreword to the special issue. J Occup Rehabil. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10926-016-9658-x.

    5. Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, Van Tulder M, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:507-24. doi:10.1007/s10926-005- 8031-2.

    6. Pransky G, Gatchel R, Linton SJ, Loisel P. Improving return to work research. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:453-7.

    7. Anema J, Steenstra I, Urlings I, Bongers P, De Vroome E, Van Mechelen W. Participatory ergonomics as a return-to-work intervention: a future challenge? Am J Ind Med. 2003;44: 273-81.

    8. Main CJ, Shaw WS. Conceptual, methodological and measurement challenges in addressing return to work in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return-to-work: from research to practice. New York, NY: Springer; 2016. p. 423-38.

    9. Main CJ, Shaw WS, Mitchell J. Towards an approach to return to work in musculoskeletal disorders. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return-to-work: from research to practice. New York, NY: Springer; 2016. p. 439-57.

    10. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, Casey D, Cross JT, Shekelle P, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:478-91.

  • Related Research Results (1)
  • Similar Research Results (2)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark