Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study

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

An Erratum to this article was published on 13 March 2007

Abstract

Background: Supervisors’ attitudes and measures have been pointed out by employees to influence the return to work process. The purpose of this study was to explore supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process and factors influencing the support of sick-listed employees. Method: The focus group method was used. Six groups were conducted and each group met on one occasion. Twenty-three supervisors experienced in managing sick-listed employees participated. Result: Two different themes emerged; In “The Supervisor is the Key Person” the participants found themselves as being key persons, carrying the main responsibility for the rehabilitation of the sick-listed employees and for creating a good working environment, thus preventing ill health and sick-listing among the employees. In the second theme “Influential Factors in Rehabilitation Work” the participants described the rehabilitation work as a part of a greater whole influenced by society, demands and resources of the workplace and the interplay between all parties involved. Conclusion: The study gives us the supervisors’ perspective on the complexity of the return to work rehabilitation. This knowledge could be invaluable and be used to improve the possibilities for developing successful collaboration in occupational rehabilitation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holmgren K, Dahlin Ivanoff S. Women on sickness absence–views of possibilities and obstacles for returning to work. A focus group study. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26(4):213–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nordqvist C, Holmqvist C, Alexanderson K. Views of laypersons on the role employers play in return to work when sick-listed. J Occup Rehabil 2003;13(1):11–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Strunin L, Boden LI. Paths of reentry: Employment experiences of injured workers. Am J Ind Med 2000;38(4):373–384.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Riksförsäkringsverket. Socialförsäkring. Lagen om allmän försäkran och andra författningar (Social Insurance. The law of general insurance and other constitutions.): Riksförsäkringsverket, 2001. Report No.: AFL 22:3. (In Swedish.)

  5. Heijbel B, Josephson M, Jensen I, Vingard E. Employer, insurance, and health system response to long-term sick leave in the public sector: Policy implications. J Occup Rehabil 2005;15(2):167–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Arnetz BB, Sjogren B, Rydehn B, Meisel R. Early workplace intervention for employees with musculoskeletal-related absenteeism: A prospective controlled intervention study. J Occup Environ Med 2003;45(5):499–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Burkhauser RV, Butler JS, Yang WK. The importance of employer accommodation on the job duration of workers with disabilities: A hazard model approach. Labour Economics 1995;2:109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dahlin Ivanoff S. Focus group discussions as a tool for developing a health education programme for elderly persons with visual impairment. Scan J Occup Ther 2002;9:3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 1994;16:103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Krueger RA. Quality control in focus group research. In: Morgan DL, ed. Successful focus groups. Advancing the state of the art. California: Sage Publication; 1993, pp. 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kitzinger J, Barbour R. Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In: Barbour R, Kitzinger J, ed. Developing focus group research. Politics, theory and practice. London: Sage Publications; 1999, pp 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krueger RA. Focus group. A practical guide for applied research. California: Sage Publications; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Verbeek JH, de Boer AG, Blonk RW, van Dijk FJ. Supervisory behaviour as a predictor of return to work in employees absent from work due to mental health problems. Occup Environ Med 2004;61(10):817–823.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Janssen N, van den Heuvel WP, Beurskens AJ, Nijhuis FJ, Schroer CA, van Eijk JT. The Demand-Control-Support model as a predictor of return to work. Int J Rehabil Res 2003;26(1):1–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kenny DT. Employers’ perspectives on the provision of suitable duties in occupational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehabil 1999;9(4):267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Neuhauser F. Modified work and return to work: A review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil 1998;8(2):113–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Franche RL, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: A systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil 2005;15(4):607–631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Navarro V, Shi L. The political context of social inequalities and health. Soc Sci Med 2001;52(3):481–491.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Östlin P. Gender inequalities in health: The significance of work. In: Wamala SP, Lynch J, ed. Gender and social inequities in health. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2002, pp. 43–65.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vahtera J, Kivimäki M, Pentti J, Theorell T. Effect of change in the psychosocial work environment on sickness absence: A seven year follow up of initially healthy employees. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000;54(7):484–493.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Vahtera J, Kivimaki M, Pentti J. Effect of organisational downsizing on health of employees. Lancet 1997;350(9085):1124–1128.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bourbonnais R, Mondor M. Job strain and sickness absence among nurses in the province of Quebec. Am J Ind Med 2001;39(2):194–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. North FM, Syme SL, Feeney A, Shipley M, Marmot M. Psychosocial work environment and sickness absence among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study. Am J Public Health 1996;86(3):332–340.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Voss M, Floderus B, Diderichsen F. Physical, psychosocial, and organisational factors relative to sickness absence: A study based on Sweden Post. Occup Environ Med 2001;58(3):178–184.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Voss M, Floderus B, Diderichsen F. How do job characteristics, family situation, domestic work, and lifestyle factors relate to sickness absence? A study based on Sweden Post. J Occup Environ Med 2004;46(11):1134–1143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vingard E, Lindberg P, Josephson M, Voss M, Heijbel B, Alfredsson L, et al. Long-term sick-listing among women in the public sector and its associations with age, social situation, lifestyle, and work factors: A three-year follow-up study. Scand J Public Health 2005;33(5):370–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. North F, Syme SL, Feeney A, Head J, Shipley MJ, Marmot MG. Explaining socioeconomic differences in sickness absence: The Whitehall II Study. BMJ 1993;306(6874):361–366.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ostlund G, Cedersund E, Hensing G, Alexanderson K. Domestic strain: A hindrance in rehabilitation? Scand J Caring Sci 2004;18(1):49–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lundberg U, Mårdberg B, Frankenhaeuser M. The total workload of male and female white collar workers as related to age, occupational level, and number of children. Scand J Psychol 1994;35(4):315–327.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hensing G, Alexanderson K. The relation of adult experience of domestic harassment, violence and sexual abuse to health and sickness absence. Int J Behav Med 2000;7:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pollock N. Client-centered assessment. Am J Occup Ther 1993;47(4):298–301.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wressle E, Eeg-Olofsson AM, Marcusson J, Henriksson C. Improved client participation in the rehabilitation process using a client-centred goal formulation structure. J Rehabil Med 2002;34(1):5–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Riksförsäkringsverket. Långtidssjukskrivna – diagnos, yrke, partiell sjukskrivning och återgång i arbete (Long-term sick-listed – diagnoses, occupation, partial sick-listing and return to work). Stockholm: Riksförsäkringsverket, 2004. Report No.: 2004:7. (In Swedish.)

  34. Dunn W, Brown C, McGuigan A. The ecology of human performance: A framework for considering the effect of context. Am J Occup Ther 1994;48(7):595–607.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Law M, Cooper BA, Strong S, Stewart D, Rigby P, Letts L. The Person-Environment-Occupational Model: A transactive approach to occupational performance. Can J Occup Ther 1996;63(1):9–23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Primary Health Care in Gothenburg and by grants from the local Research and Development Council of Gothenburg and Southern Bohuslän. We thank Thorbjörn Jonsson for linguistic advice and illustration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Box 455, SE 405 30, Göteborg, Sweden

    Kristina Holmgren & Synneve Dahlin Ivanoff

Authors
  1. Kristina Holmgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Synneve Dahlin Ivanoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Holmgren.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-007-9080-5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holmgren, K., Ivanoff, S.D. Supervisors’ views on employer responsibility in the return to work process. A focus group study. J Occup Rehabil 17, 93–106 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-006-9041-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-006-9041-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation