Skip to main content
Log in

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

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

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

  1. Verbatim extracts from the participants’ interviews exemplify the factors. The extracts are a free translation from the original French transcripts.

  2. 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

  1. Statistique Canada. Census in Brief: Working seniors in Canada. 2017.

  2. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Busque M-A, Duguay P. Lésions avec atteinte permanente à l’intégrité physique ou psychique - Analyse du risque au Québec. IRSST; 2017.

  4. 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.

  5. CNESST. Portrait des lésions professionnelles chez les travailleurs de 55 ans et plus, 2002–2011. 2014.

  6. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

  10. Collins S, Casey R. America’s aging workforce: Opportunities and challenges. Report from the Special Committee on Aging United States Senate. 2017.

  11. Manné I, Rousseau L. Les seniors, plus nombreux et beaucoup plus souvent en emploi. 2020.

  12. Statistique Canada. Enquête sur la population active. 2019.

  13. Benson J, Brown M. Generations at work: Are there differences and do they matter? Int J Hum Resource Manage. 2011;22:1843–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Farrow A, Reynolds F. Health and safety of the older worker. Occupational medicine (Oxford. England). 2012;62:4–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nogues S, Tremblay D-G. Les travailleurs en emploi post-retraite au Québec: Qui sont ils? Cahiers du CIRTES. 2017.

  20. Busque M-A, Duguay P. Lésions avec atteinte permanente à l’intégrité physique ou psychique - Analyse du risque au Québec2017.

  21. CNESST. Statistiques sur les lésions attribuables aux troubles musculosquelettiques (TMS) en milieu de travail. 2019.

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

  25. 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/.

  26. Stikeleather J. An older worker’s decision to “push or protect self” following a work-related injury. Work. 2004;22:139–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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).

  29. Saint-Arnaud L, Saint-Jean M. Le vieillissement des travailleurs et le processus de réinsertion professionnelle. Gérontologie et société. 2002;25(3):127–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Algarni FS, Gross DP, Senthilselvan A, Battié MC. Ageing workers with work-related musculoskeletal injuries. Occup Med. 2015;65(3):229–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Creswell JW, Poth CN, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Fourth ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Fifth ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. 2016;27(4):591–608.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Paillé P, Mucchielli A. L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. 4 ed. Paris: Armand Colin; 2016. 430 p.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. Young AE. Employment maintenance and the factors that impact it after vocational rehabilitation and return to work. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(20):1621–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Galanter M. Planet of the APs: Reflections on the Scale of Law and its users. Buff L Rev. 2005;53:1369.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pilusa ML, Mogotlane MS. Worker knowledge of occupational legislation and related health and safety benefits. Curationis. 2018;41(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Costa G, Sartori S. Ageing, working hours and work ability. Ergonomics. 2007;50(11):1914–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ng ESW, Law A. Keeping up! Older workers’ adaptation in the workplace after Age 55. Can J Aging. 2014;33(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wong CM, Tetrick LE. Job Crafting: Older workers’ mechanism for maintaining person-job fit. Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;8(1548).

  61. Leisink PL, Knies E. Line managers’ support for older workers. Int J Hum Resource Manage. 2011;22(9):1902–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

  63. 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

  64. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lahey J. State age protection laws and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. J Law Econ. 2008;51(3):433–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

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

Correspondence to Alexandra Lecours.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10045-8

Keywords

Navigation