Cited by 65Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-being

Injured Workers’ Construction of Expectations of Return to Work with Sub-Acute Back Pain: The Role of Perceived Uncertainty

Stewart, Alison M., Polak, Emily, Young, Richard, Schultz, Izabela Z.·2012·Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

Abstract

Introduction Little is known about the formation of expectations of return to work (RTW) from the perspective of injured workers with back injuries. This modified grounded theory study uses a biopsychosocial approach that considers the workers' complex social circumstances, to unpack the multidimensional construct of expectations of RTW from the injured worker's perspective.Method Initial semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 individuals with sub-acute back pain, who were off work between 3 and 6 months. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 7 participants for the purposes of member checking. The interview data was coded, compared and analyzed over the course of data collection, until saturation was reached.Results Data analysis revealed that expectations of return-to-work are constructed based on perceived uncertainty which subsumes five inter-related categories (1) perceived lack of control over the return-to-work process, (2) perceived lack of recognition by others of the impact of the injury, (3) perceived inability to perform the pre-injury job, (4) fear of re-injury, and (5) perceived need for workplace accommodations. Expectations, once formed, were influenced by the worker's experience of coping with perceived uncertainty.Conclusion Perceived uncertainty plays a key role in injured workers' formation of expectations of return-to-work. Implications are discussed regarding how this perceived uncertainty plays a role in the development of (re)injury prevention and rehabilitation programs. The importance of further research on perceived uncertainty is presented, along with potential future research considerations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10926-011-9312-6

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stewart, A. M., Polak, E., Young, R., & Schultz, I. Z.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Stewart, Alison M.
Venue
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Published
2011-06-09
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 1053-0487 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3688
OpenAlex
W1995417872
Cited by
65
References
62
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
26.92
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
injured workers, perceived uncertainty, fear of reinjury, workplace accommodations, coping with uncertainty, biopsychosocial model, work disability, injury rehabilitation, reinjury prevention
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Back Pain, Employment, Fear, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Uncertainty, Young Adult

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