{"id":154,"date":"2019-02-02T04:17:37","date_gmt":"2019-02-02T04:17:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limb.dev.scorchedmedia.com.au\/research\/?p=154"},"modified":"2019-02-28T04:18:28","modified_gmt":"2019-02-28T04:18:28","slug":"perspectives-from-employers-insurers-lawyers-and-healthcare-providers-on-factors-that-influence-workers-return-to-work-following-surgery-for-non-traumatic-upper-extremity-conditions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/perspectives-from-employers-insurers-lawyers-and-healthcare-providers-on-factors-that-influence-workers-return-to-work-following-surgery-for-non-traumatic-upper-extremity-conditions\/","title":{"rendered":"Perspectives from employers, insurers, lawyers and healthcare providers on factors that influence workers\u2019 return-to-work following surgery for non-traumatic upper extremity conditions."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Peters SE, Coppieters MW, Ross M, Johnston V.<br \/>\n<strong>Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2017; 27(3):343\u2013358.<\/strong><br \/>\n<em>DOI: 10.1007\/s10926-016-9662-1<\/em><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Purpose<\/span>: Return-to-work (RTW) stakeholders have varied roles and may therefore hold their own perspectives regarding factors that may influence outcomes. This study aimed to determine stakeholders\u2019 perspectives on factors influencing RTW following surgery for non-traumatic upper extremity conditions.<br \/>\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Methods<\/span>: A questionnaire was distributed to RTW stakeholders via gatekeeper organizations. Stakeholders rated 50 potential prognostic factors from \u2018not\u2019 to \u2018extremely\u2019 influential. Data were dichotomized to establish stakeholders\u2019 level of agreement. Disagreements between stakeholder groups were analyzed using \u03c72. The relationship between stakeholder demographic variables and rating of a factor was determined via regression analysis.<br \/>\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Results<\/span>: One thousand and eleven stakeholders completed the survey: healthcare providers (77.8 %); employer representatives (12.2 %); insurer representatives (6.8 %); and lawyers (3.2 %). Factors with the highest stakeholder agreement for influencing RTW were: self-efficacy (92.2 %); post-operative psychological status (91.8 %); supportive employer\/supervisor (91.4 %); employer\u2019s willingness to accommodate job modifications (90.7 %); worker\u2019s recovery expectations (88.3 %); mood disorder diagnosis (86.6 %); post-operative pain level (86.4 %); and whether the job can be modified (86.3 %). Disagreements between stakeholder groups were found for 19 (36 %) factors. The strongest disagreements were for: age; gender; obesity; doctor\u2019s RTW recommendation; and presence of a RTW coordinator. Respondents\u2019 characteristics (e.g., age, workers\u2019 compensation jurisdiction, work experience, stakeholder group) were associated with factor rating.<br \/>\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Conclusion<\/span>: The factors stakeholders rated as having the greatest influence on RTW were predominately psychosocial and modifiable. These variables should be the focus of future research to determine prognostic factors for RTW for workers with upper extremity conditions, and to develop effective RTW interventions.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/Peters_Coppieters_Ross_and_Johnston_2016_RTW_following_upper_extremity_surgery.pdf\">Download<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Peters SE, Coppieters MW, Ross M, Johnston V. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2017; 27(3):343\u2013358. DOI: 10.1007\/s10926-016-9662-1 Purpose: Return-to-work (RTW) stakeholders have varied roles and may therefore hold their own perspectives regarding factors that may influence outcomes. This study aimed to determine stakeholders\u2019 perspectives on factors influencing RTW following surgery for non-traumatic upper extremity conditions. Methods: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-recent-publications"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":157,"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154\/revisions\/157"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.upperlimb.com\/research\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}