Definitions of factors that positively/negatively influence duration of absence or RTW
Expectations regarding RTW / Expectations regarding duration of absence due to illness / Expectations regarding recovery
[Expectation of return to work, Expectation of shorter sick leave duration, Expectation of recovery].
Short definition
The abovementioned expectations encompass several factors (Besen, Young & Shaw, 2015), including the person’s own assessment of when he or she will feel better and be able to resume his or her usual activities, such as those related to work (Schultz et al., 2004).
Full definition
The nature of these expectations appears to be influenced by the personal, interpersonal and systemic contexts. For example, a person’s current health status, the employer’s attitudes and the obstacles to employment are factors that could affect the person’s assessment of when he or she will be able to return to work, (Stewart, Polak, Young & Schultz, 2012). People’s expectations regarding their recovery appear to have an impact on the clinical outcome of several health conditions. The scientific literature has suggested that behavioural and physiological mechanisms could explain this impact (Mondloch, Cole & Frank, 2001).
Besen, E., Young, A. E., & Shaw, W. S. (2015). “Returning to work following low back pain: Towards a model of individual psychosocial factors” . Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25 (1), 25-37. Mondloch, M. V., Cole, D. C., & Frank, J. W. (2001).” Does how you do depend on how you think you’ll do: A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients’ recovery expectations and health outcomes.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165 (2), 174-179.
Return-to-work self-efficacy
[Return to work self-efficacy]
Short definition
The feeling of efficacy (known as self-efficacy) is the strength of a person’s conviction in his or her ability to exhibit a certain behaviour (Bandura, 1977), notably, to resume his or her work activities following a sick leave (Corbière et al., 2016).
Full definition
The feeling of efficacy, known as self-efficacy, is a concept applied in many fields. People’s expectations regarding their self-efficacy determine whether or not a behaviour is initiated, how much effort will be put into behaving in this way, and how long the behaviour will be maintained in the presence of obstacles or negative experiences (Bandura, 1977). Applying this concept to the return to work, it implies that individuals with low self-efficacy might delay their return and be less successful in their attempts to return (Brouwer, Amick, Lee, Franche & Hogg-Johnson, 2015), particularly because they do not believe they are able to overcome the obstacles they encounter (Corbière et al., 2016). Individuals with musculoskeletal pain and low self-efficacy in their return to work might, for example, be convinced that they are unable to propose solutions to their supervisor for reducing their discomfort, to manage their own pain adequately when at work or to explain their limitations to their co-workers.
Bandura, A. (1977). “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.” Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Brouwer, S., Amick, B. C., Lee, H., Franche, R.-L. et Hogg-Johnson, S. (2015). “The predictive validity of the return-to-work self-efficacy scale for return-to-work outcomes in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders.” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(4), 725-732. doi: 10.1007/s10926-015-9580-7
Brouwer, S., Franche, R.-L., Hogg-Johnson, S., Lee, H., Krause, N. et Shaw, W. S. (2011). “Return-to-work self-efficacy: Development and validation of a scale in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders.” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 244-258. doi: 10.1007/s10926-010-9262-4
Corbière, M., Negrini, A., Durand, M.-J., St-Arnaud, L., Briand, C., Fassier, J.-B., . . . Lachance, J.-P. (2016). “Development of the Return-to-Work Obstacles and Self-Efficacy Scale (ROSES) and validation with workers suffering from a common mental disorder or musculoskeletal disorder.” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 27(3), 329-341. doi: 10.1007/s10926-016-9661-2
Job strain
Short definition
The term job strain refers to the presence of stress resulting from a high level of psychological demands combined with the worker’s lack of control over their work. For example, a person who is required to perform a large amount of work appears to experience more stress if he or she is also unable to decide how to perform his or her tasks (Kain & Jex, 2015).
Full definition
Of the various occupational stress models, Karasek’s demand-control model has been the most frequently studied. It postulates that, depending on their jobs and work environments, workers are exposed to varying levels of psychological demands and have varying levels of control over their work. “Worker control” means the degree of autonomy they have in organizing tasks, making decisions and developing their skills. A person who has control over his or her work thus has decision latitude regarding the job demands that arise (Van Wassenhove, 2014). In this model, the combination of these factors leads to four job categories: active, passive, low strain and high strain. High-strain jobs are characterized by the presence of high work demands and low worker control. In this type of job, a worker has difficulty completing his or her work in the required time and is unable to perform the job as he or she wishes. This leads to heavy use of his or her cognitive resources and high physiological activation.
An example of a worker experiencing high job strain is one working on a production line involving a fast work pace, where neither the speed nor method of production can be modified (Kain & Jex, 2015). In the demand-control model, an increase in work demands would theoretically have less impact on stress levels if the worker also had increased control (de Jonge, van Vegchel, Shimazu, Schaufeli & Dormann, 2010). Increased resources in the workplace could also help reduce job strain (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Bakker, A. B. et Demerouti, E. (2007). “The job demands-resources model: State of the art.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
de Jonge, J., van Vegchel, N., Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. et Dormann, C. (2010). “A longitudinal test of the demand-control model using specific job demands and specific job control.” International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17(2), 125-133.
Kain, J. et Jex, S. (2015). “Karasek’s (1979) job demands-control model: A summary of current issues and recommendations for future research”. Dans P. Perrewé, J. Halbesleben et C. Rose (Édit.), “New developments in theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress” (vol. 8, p. 237-268). Bingley, Angleterre: Emerald.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). “Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
Van Wassenhove, W. (2014). Modèle de Karasek. Dans P. Zawieja et F. Guarnieri (Édit.), Dictionnaire des risques psychosociaux (p. 170-174). Paris, France: Éditions du Seuil.