Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27792035›Full record

ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2016

Implementing a collaborative return-to-work program: Lessons from a qualitative study in a large Canadian healthcare organization.

Kathryn Skivington, Marni Lifshen, Cameron Mustard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kathryn SkivingtonInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Marni LifshenInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Cameron MustardInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/10Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/8
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComprehensive workplace return-to-work policies, applied with consistency, can reduce length of time out of work and the risk of long-term disability. This paper reports on the findings from a qualitative study exploring managers' and return-to-work-coordinators' views on the implementation of their organization's new return-to-work program.

objectivesTo provide practical guidance to organizations in designing and implementing return-to-work programs for their employees.

methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken with 20 managers and 10 return-to-work co-ordinators to describe participants' perspectives on the progress of program implementation in the first 18 months of adoption. The study was based in a large healthcare organization in Ontario, Canada. Thematic analysis of the data was conducted.

resultsWe identified tensions evident in the early implementation phase of the organization's return-to-work program. These tensions were attributed to uncertainties concerning roles and responsibilities and to circumstances where objectives or principles appeared to be in conflict.

conclusionsThe implementation of a comprehensive and collaborative return-to-work program is a complex challenge. The findings described in this paper may provide helpful guidance for organizations embarking on the development and implementation of a return-to-work program.

Indexed as

Health Care SectorProfessional RoleReturn to WorkCooperative BehaviorDissent and DisputesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleOntarioOrganizational CultureProgram DevelopmentQualitative Researchemploymentorganizational innovationReturn to worksick leave

Identifiers

PMID27792035
PMCPMC5147494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.