Abstract
Purpose. This study aims to paint a picture of the factors that influence the process of rehabilitation, return, and stay at work, for aging workers who have suffered an occupational injury. Methods. Based on a descriptive interpretative research design, the authors conducted interviews with 23 participants (i.e., aging workers, workers’ representatives, employers, insurers, and rehabilitation professionals) to gather their perspectives. Qualitative data was analyzed through thematic analysis. Results. Fifteen factors related to the worker, health system, workplace, or compensation system were identified. These factors prevail during rehabilitation, return to work, stay at work, or the entire process. Conclusions. This study contributes to the advancement of knowledge regarding three main ideas: (1) the importance of not placing the responsibility on the worker in this complex process, (2) the key role of the compensation system, and (3) the necessity of transforming work to reduce ageism.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
Verbatim extracts from the participants’ interviews exemplify the factors. The extracts are a free translation from the original French transcripts.
Letters in brackets refer to the stakeholder’s type: E = employer, I = insurer, RP = rehabilitation professional, W = worker, WR = worker representative. Numbers (1 to 23) refer to the participant’s number.
References
Statistique Canada. Census in Brief: Working seniors in Canada. 2017.
Lecours A, Robitaille R. Comment le travail après la retraite influence-t-il la santé des travailleurs vieillissants ? Un examen de la portée. Recl annuel belge d’ergothérapie. 2020;12:36–46.
Busque M-A, Duguay P. Lésions avec atteinte permanente à l’intégrité physique ou psychique - Analyse du risque au Québec. IRSST; 2017.
Van Eerd D, Smith P, Vu U. Implications of an aging workforce for work injury, recovery, returning to work and remaining at work. OOHNA Journal. 2019:30–6.
CNESST. Portrait des lésions professionnelles chez les travailleurs de 55 ans et plus, 2002–2011. 2014.
Evans DM, Conte K, Gilroy M, Marvin T, Theysohn H, Fisher G. Occupational therapy - meeting the needs of older adult workers? Work. 2008;31(1):73–82.
Lecours A, Bédard-Mercier R. L’expérience de retour au travail des personnes vieillissantes ayant subi une atteinte à la santé: un examen de la portée. La Revue canadienne du vieillissement. 2022;41(4):Online first.
Hovbrandt P, Carlsson G, Nilsson K, Albin M, Håkansson C. Occupational balance as described by older workers over the age of 65. J Occup Sci. 2019;26(1):40–52.
Fields A, Uppal S, LaRochelle-Côté S. L’incidence du vieillissement de la population sur les taux d’activité du marché du travail. Statistique Canada; 2017.
Collins S, Casey R. America’s aging workforce: Opportunities and challenges. Report from the Special Committee on Aging United States Senate. 2017.
Manné I, Rousseau L. Les seniors, plus nombreux et beaucoup plus souvent en emploi. 2020.
Statistique Canada. Enquête sur la population active. 2019.
Benson J, Brown M. Generations at work: Are there differences and do they matter? Int J Hum Resource Manage. 2011;22:1843–65.
Twenge JM, Campbell SM, Hoffman BJ, Lance CE. Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. J Manag. 2010;36(5):1117–42.
McCann RM, Keaton SA. A cross cultural investigation of age stereotypes and communication perceptions of older and younger workers in the USA and Thailand. Educ Gerontol. 2013;39(5):326–41.
Truxillo DM, McCune EA, Bertolino M, Fraccaroli F. Perceptions of older versus younger workers in terms of big five facets, Proactive Personality, cognitive ability, and job performance. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2012;42(11):2607–39.
Kadefors R, Hanse J. Employers’ attitudes toward older workers and obstacles and opportunities for the older unemployed to reenter working life. Nordic J Working Life Stud. 2012;2:29.
Farrow A, Reynolds F. Health and safety of the older worker. Occupational medicine (Oxford. England). 2012;62:4–11.
Nogues S, Tremblay D-G. Les travailleurs en emploi post-retraite au Québec: Qui sont ils? Cahiers du CIRTES. 2017.
Busque M-A, Duguay P. Lésions avec atteinte permanente à l’intégrité physique ou psychique - Analyse du risque au Québec2017.
CNESST. Statistiques sur les lésions attribuables aux troubles musculosquelettiques (TMS) en milieu de travail. 2019.
Schwarz B, Claros-Salinas D, Streibelt M. Meta-synthesis of qualitative research on facilitators and barriers of return to work after stroke. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28(1):28–44.
Persoon S, Buffart LM, Chinapaw MJM, Nollet F, Frings-Dresen MH, Koning S, et al. Return to work experiences of patients treated with stem cell transplantation for a hematologic malignancy. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(8):2987–97.
Durand MJ, Coutu MF, Tremblay D, Sylvain C, Gouin MM, Bilodeau K, et al. nsights into the sustainable return to work of aging workers with a work disability: an interpretative description study. J Occup Rehabil, 2021; 31(1):92-106.
Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travail. L’incapacité et le retour au travail 2021 [Available from: https://retourautravail.irsst.qc.ca/.
Stikeleather J. An older worker’s decision to “push or protect self” following a work-related injury. Work. 2004;22:139–44.
Wallin S, Fjellman Wiklund A. Act with respect: Views of supportive actions for older workers after completion of comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services. Work. 2019;62:585–98.
Steenstra IA, Knol DL, Bongers PM, Anema JR, Mechelen, vW. Vet dHCW. What works best for whom? An exploratory, subgroup analysis in a randomized, controlled trial on the effectiveness of a workplace intervention in low back pain patients on return to work. Spine. 2009;34(12).
Saint-Arnaud L, Saint-Jean M. Le vieillissement des travailleurs et le processus de réinsertion professionnelle. Gérontologie et société. 2002;25(3):127–35.
Algarni FS, Gross DP, Senthilselvan A, Battié MC. Ageing workers with work-related musculoskeletal injuries. Occup Med. 2015;65(3):229–37.
Lilley R, Jaye C, Davie G, Keeling S, Waters D, Egan R. Age-related patterns in work-related injury claims from older New Zealanders, 2009–2013: Implications of injury for an aging workforce. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2018;110:86-92
Negrini A, Corbière M, Dubé J, Gragnano A, Busque M-A, Lebeau M, et al. Quels sont les déterminants du retour au travail durable des travailleurs seniors ayant subi une lésion psychologique ou physique? IRSST; 2020.
Morgeson F, Humphrey S. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91:1321–39.
Lederer V, Loisel P, Rivard M, Champagne F. Exploring the diversity of conceptualizations of work (dis) ability: a scoping review of published definitions. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(2):242–67.
Gallagher F, Marceau M. La recherche descriptive interprétative. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes, 2e édition: Dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé. 2020:5–32.
Hunt MR. Strengths and challenges in the use of interpretive description: reflections arising from a study of the moral experience of health professionals in humanitarian work. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(9):1284–92.
Creswell JW, Poth CN, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Fourth ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2018.
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Fifth ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2018.
Laperrière A. Les critères de scientificité des méthodes qualitatives dans. In: Poupart J, Groulx LH, Deslauriers JP, Laperrière A. R Mayer et AP Pires (dir), La recherche qualitative: enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Montréal: G. Morin; 1997. pp. 365–89.
Loisel P, Durand M-J, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention: New paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Disease Manage Health Outcomes. 2001;9(7):351–60.
Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. 2016;27(4):591–608.
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.
Paillé P, Mucchielli A. L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. 4 ed. Paris: Armand Colin; 2016. 430 p.
Collie A, Newnam S, Keleher H, Petersen A, Kosny A, Vogel AP, et al. Recovery within injury compensation schemes: a system mapping study. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(1):52–63.
Lecours A, Durand M, Coutu M. Stay at work after a period of disability: A complex process marked by social exchanges. J Occup Rehabil 2021;Online First.
Audet J, Lecours A, Nastasia I. Experiences in the return-to-work process of workers having suffered occupational injuries in small and medium size enterprises. Work. accepté.
Young AE. Employment maintenance and the factors that impact it after vocational rehabilitation and return to work. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(20):1621–32.
Young A, Roessler R, Wasiak R, McPherson K, Poppel M, Anema J. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):557–68.
Kilgour E, Kosny A, McKenzie D, Collie A. Interactions between injured workers and insurers in workers’ compensation systems: a systematic review of qualitative research literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):160–81.
Bartys S, Frederiksen P, Bendix T, Burton K. System influences on work disability due to low back pain: an international evidence synthesis. Health Policy. 2017;121(8):903–12.
Collie A, Sheehan L, Lane TJ, Gray S, Grant G. Injured worker experiences of insurance claim processes and return to work: a national, cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–12.
Heuser C, Halbach S, Kowalski C, Enders A, Pfaff H, Ernstmann N. Sociodemographic and disease-related determinants of return to work among women with breast cancer: a German longitudinal cohort study. BMC Health Services Research. 2018;18.
Pransky GS, Benjamin KL, Savageau JA, Currivan D, Fletcher K. Outcomes in work-related injuries: A comparison of older and younger workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;47(2):104–12.
Hudon A, Hunt M, Ehrmann Feldman D. Physiotherapy for injured workers in Canada: are insurers’ and clinics’ policies threatening good quality and equity of care? Results of a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–13.
Kilgour E, Kosny A, McKenzie D, Collie A. Healing or harming? Healthcare provider interactions with injured workers and insurers in workers’ compensation systems. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(1):220–39.
Galanter M. Planet of the APs: Reflections on the Scale of Law and its users. Buff L Rev. 2005;53:1369.
Pilusa ML, Mogotlane MS. Worker knowledge of occupational legislation and related health and safety benefits. Curationis. 2018;41(1):1–6.
Costa G, Sartori S. Ageing, working hours and work ability. Ergonomics. 2007;50(11):1914–30.
Ng ESW, Law A. Keeping up! Older workers’ adaptation in the workplace after Age 55. Can J Aging. 2014;33(1):1–14.
Wong CM, Tetrick LE. Job Crafting: Older workers’ mechanism for maintaining person-job fit. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;8(1548).
Leisink PL, Knies E. Line managers’ support for older workers. Int J Hum Resource Manage. 2011;22(9):1902–17.
Fasbender U. Stereotype, prejudice and discrimination toward older workers: A wind of change? The Aging Workforce Handbook. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 2016. p. 159 – 84.
Vodanovich S, Rupp D, Crede M. Age bias in the workplace: The impact of ageism and causal attributions. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003; 36(6):1137-1364
Krause N, Dasinger LK, Neuhauser F. Modified work and return to work: A review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil. 1998;8(2):113–39.
Rothenberg JZ, Gardner DS. Protecting older workers: The failure of the age discrimination in employment act of 1967. J Soc & Soc Welfare. 2011;38:9.
Lahey J. State age protection laws and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. J Law Econ. 2008;51(3):433–60.
O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge Annabelle Verville, Camille Morel, Lily Bellehumeur-Béchamp and Roxanne Bédard-Mercier, research assistants, for their help with literature search, data collection, data analysis, and writing.
Funding
This work was supported by research grants from Quebec Rehabilitation Research Network and Quebec Network for Research on Aging.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by AL and ML, revised by MML, GL and JL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AL and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare.
Ethics
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were per the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Ethical certification was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Integrated University Health and Social Services Center of the Capitale-Nationale (CIUSSS-CN), no 2020–2024.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lecours, A., Laliberté, M., Lord, MM. et al. The Process of Rehabilitation, Return and Stay at Work of Aging Workers Who Suffered an Occupational Injury: A Portrait Based on the Experience of Canadian Stakeholders. J Occup Rehabil 32, 790–802 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10045-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10045-8