Prevention of Work Disability Due to Musculoskeletal Disorders: The Challenge of Implementing Evidence
Abstract
Background The process of returning disabled workers to work presents numerous challenges. In spite of the growing evidence regarding work disability prevention, little uptake of this evidence has been observed. One reason for limited dissemination of evidence is the complexity of the problem, as it is subject to multiple legal, administrative, social, political, and cultural challenges.Purpose and methods A literature review and collection of experts' opinion is presented, on the current evidence for work disability prevention, and barriers to evidence implementation. Recommendations are presented for enhancing implementation of research results.Conclusion The current evidence regarding work disability prevention shows that some clinical interventions (advice to return to modified work and graded activity programs) and some non-clinical interventions (at a service and policy/community level but not at a practice level) are effective in reducing work absenteeism. Implementation of evidence in work disability is a major challenge because intervention recommendations are often imprecise and not yet practical for immediate use, many barriers exist, and many stakeholders are involved. Future studies should involve all relevant stakeholders and aim at developing new strategies that are effective, efficient, and have a potential for successful implementation. These studies should be based upon a clearer conceptualization of the broader context and inter-relationships that determine return to work outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent studies indicate that in addition to workers' personal factors, environmental factors such as job characteristics, work modifications, involved stakeholders, and the compensation system are of upmost importance for SAW and RTW.
“Recent studies indicate that in addition to workers' personal factors (workers' characteristics, health, and medical care), environmental factors such as job characteristics, work modifications, involved stakeholders, and the compensation system are of upmost importance for SAW and RTW [54-56].”
From Staying at work with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study of workers' experiences (2011) · cites this paper as [55]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 87 · Cited by 403
- Authors
- Loisel, P., Buchbinder, R., Hazard, R., Keller, R., Scheel, I., van Tulder, M., & Webster, B.
- Affiliations
- Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
- Cabrini Hospital (AU)
- Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety (US)
- Corresponding author
- Loisel, Patrick
- Venue
- Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 507-524
- ISSN
- 1053-0487 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3688
- OpenAlex
- W2137150643
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 26.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- work disability prevention, musculoskeletal disorders, return to work, implementation of evidence, implementation barriers, absenteeism, stakeholder engagement, vocational rehabilitation
- MeSH terms
- Attitude to Health, Canada, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Occupational Diseases, Occupational Health Services, United States, Sick Leave, Evidence-Based Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review