Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Return-to-Work Activities in a Chinese Cultural Context

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

Abstract

Introduction Several studies have been conducted in the West showing that return to work (RTW) coordination is a key element to facilitate RTW of injured workers and to prevent work disabilities. However, no study has been carried out to investigate the scope of RTW activities in China. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of key RTW stakeholders on necessary activities for RTW coordination. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Guangdong province of China. A three-tiered approach including focus group discussions and panel reviews was used to collect RTW activities, analyze the content validity, and classify domains. Descriptive statistics and intra-class correlation (ICC) were used to describe the importance of RTW activities and the degree of agreement on the classification of different domains. A Kruskal–Wallis test with subsequent post-hoc analysis using multiple Mann–Whitney U tests was carried out to check for any differences in the domains of different RTW activities among RTW stakeholders. Results The domains of RTW activities in China were similar to those in the West and included workplace assessment and mediation, social problem solving, role and liability clarification, and medical advice. Good agreement (ICC: 0.729–0.844) on the classification of RTW activities into different domains was found. The domains of the RTW activities of healthcare providers differed from those of employers (P = 0.002) and injured workers (P = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between employers and injured workers. Conclusions This study indicated that differences among stakeholders were observed in terms of areas of relative priority. There is a clear need for research and training in China to establish a nation-wide terminology for RTW coordination, facilitate cross-provincial studies and work toward a more integrated system addressing the diverse perspectives of stakeholders involved in the RTW process.

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

Notes

  1. There are 10 grades of disability, determined by the Standard Assessment of the Seriousness of Work-related Injuries and Occupational Disease issued by the Ministry of Labour and Society Security in 1996. Grades one to four are the most serious and indicate that the employee no longer has the ability to work; grades five to six indicate that the employee has lost most of his or her ability to work; grades seven to ten indicate that the employee is partially disabled [6].

References

  1. Wikipedia. World population. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population. 2010.

  2. Escobar P. Guangdong, the unstoppable “world’s factory”. Asia Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GA25Ad05.html. 2010.

  3. Chen G. The constitution of work injury insurance system and the development of work injury rehabilitation in China. Proceedings of 2009 international seminar on work injury rehabilitation: challenges of 21st century occupational rehabilitation. Guangzhou, China; 2009.

  4. Tian XB, Zhou XZ. Social security in China. Beijing: China Intercontinental Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Li Z. Realistic option for the work injury rehabilitation system in China. Proceeding of national symposium on work injury rehabilitation. Guangzhou, China; 2005.

  6. China Labour Bulletin. Compensation for work-related injury and occupational disease in China. Retrieved from http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100207; 2009.

  7. Young AE, Wasiak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR, van Poppel MNM. Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehab. 2005;15(4):543–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, van Tulder M, Webster B. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorder: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehab. 2005;15:507–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Franche RL, Krause N. Readiness for return to work following injury or illness: conceptualizing the interpersonal impact of health care, workplace, and insurance factors. J Occup Rehab. 2002;12:233–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Szymanski E, Parker G, Ryan C, Nerz M, Trevino-Espinoza B, Johnston-Rodriguez S. Work and disability: basic constructs. In: Szymanski E, Parker R, editors. Work and disability. Austin, TX: Pro-ed; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shaw WS, Huang YH. Concerns and expectations about returning to work with low back pain: identifying themes from focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(21):1269–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Keogh JP, Nuwayhid I, Gordon JL, Gucer P. The impact of occupational injury on injured worker and family: outcomes of upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders in Maryland workers. Am J Ind Med. 2000;38:498–506.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehab. 2005;15(4):525–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Williams RM, Westmorland M. Perspectives on workplace disability management: a review of the literature. Work. 2002;19:87–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kenny DT. Employers’ perspectives on the provision of suitable duties in occupational rehabilitation. J Occup Rehab. 1999;9(4):267–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fisher TF. Perception differences between groups of employees identifying the factors that influence a return to work after a work-related musculoskeletal injury. Work. 2003;21:211–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Larsson A, Gard G. How can the rehabilitation planning process at the workplace be improved? A qualitative study from employers’ perspective. J Occup Rehab. 2003;13:169–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pransky G, Katz JN, Benjamin K, Himmelstein J. Improving the physician role in evaluating work disability and managing disability: a survey of primary care practitioners. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:867–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barrett J, Kirk S. Running focus groups with elderly and disabled elderly participants. Appl Ergonomics. 2000;31:621–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitzinger J. The methodology of focus group: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociol Health Illn. 1994;16:103–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Krueger RA. Quality control in focus group research. In: Morgan DL, editor. Successful focus groups: advancing the state of the art. California: Sage; 1993. p. 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shaw W, Hong QN, Pransky G, Loisel P. A literature review describing the role of return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent workplace disability. J Occup Rehab. 2008;18:2–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: application to practice. Prentice-Hall, NJ; 2000, pp. 560–7.

  25. Stice BD, Dik BJ. Depression among injured workers receiving vocational rehabilitation: contributions of work values, pain, and stress. J Occup Rehab. 2009;19:354–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Morse TF, Dillon C, Warren N, Levenstein C, Warren A. The economic and social consequences of work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the Connecticut Upper-Extremity Surveillance Project (CUSP). Int J Occup Environ Health. 1998;4(4):209–16.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Asmundson GJ, Norton GR, Allerdings MD, Norton PJ, Larson DK. Posttraumatic stress disorder and work-related injury. J Anxiety Disord. 1998;12(1):57–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kirsh B, McKee P. The needs and experiences of injured workers: a participatory research study. Work. 2003;21:221–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kessler RC. The effects of stressful life events on depression. Annu Rev Psychol. 1997;48:191–214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Seff MA, Gecas V, Ray MP. Injury and depression: the mediating effects of self-concept. Soc Perspect. 1992;35(4):573–91.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jin K, Lombardi DA, Countney TK, Sorock GS, Li M, Pan R, Wang X, Lin J, Liang Y, Perry M. Patterns of work-related traumatic hand injury among hospitalised workers in the People’s Republic of China. Inj Prev. 2010;16:42–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gold JE, d’Errico A, Katz JN, Gore R, Punnett L. Specific and non-specific upper extremity musculoskeletal disorder syndromes in automobile manufacturing workers. Am J Ind Med. 2009;52:124–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pransky G, Wasiak R, Himmelstein J. Disability system: the physician’s role. Clin Occup Environ Med. 2001;1:829–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schultz IZ, Crook J, Fraser K, Joy PW. Models of diagnosis and rehabilitation in musculoskeletal pain-related occupational disability. J Occup Rehab. 2000;10(4):271–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stowell AW, McGeary DD. Musculoskeletal injury: a three-stage continuum form cause to disability to decision. In: Schultz IZ, Gatche RJ, editors. Handbook of complex occupational disability claims: early risk identification, intervention, and prevention. New York: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kelly M, Field D. Comments on the rejection of biomedical model in sociological discourse. Med Sociol News. 1994;19(3):34–7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hunt D, Zuberbier OA, Kozlowski A, Berkowitz J, Schultz IZ, Milner RA, Crook JM, Turk DC. Are components of a comprehensive medical assessment predictive of work disability following an episode of occupational low back trouble? Spine. 2002;27(23):2715–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cocchiarella L, Turk MA, Andersson G. Improving the evaluation of permanent impairment. J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283:532–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Tate D, Pledger C. An integrative conceptual framework of disability. Am Psychol. 2003;58:289–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Olkin R, Pledger C. Can disability studies and psychology join hands? A new model of disability. Am Psychol. 2003;58:296–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Waddell G, Burton AK. Concepts of rehabilitation for the management of low back pain. Best Pract Res. 2005;19(4):655–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhuo DH. Education and training of the professionals in work injury rehabilitation. Proceedings of 2009 international seminar on work injury rehabilitation: challenges of 21st century occupational rehabilitation. Guangzhou, China; 2009.

  44. Green-Mckenzie J, Parkerson J, Bernacki E. Comparison of workers’ compensation costs for two cohorts of injured workers before and after the introduction of managed care. J Occup Environ Med. 1998;40:568–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Bernacki EJ, Tsai SP. Ten years’ experience using workers’ compensation case management system to control workers’ compensation costs. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(5):508–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shrey D, Lacerte M. Principles and practices of disability management in industry. Winter Park, FL: GR Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Amick BI, Habeck R, Hunt A, Fossel A, Chapin A, Keller R, Katz J. Measuring the impact of organizational behaviors on work disability prevention and management. J Occup Rehab. 2000;10(1):21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bruyère S, Shrey D. Disability management in industry: a joint labor-management process. Rehabil Couns Bull. 1991;34(3):227–42.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Feuerstein M. A multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, evaluation, and management of work disability. J Occup Rehab. 1991;1(1):5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shaw WS, Feuerstein M. Generating workplace accommodations: lessons learned from the integrated case management study. J Occup Rehab. 2004;14(3):207–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gates LB. The role of the supervisor in successful adjustment to work with a disabling condition: issues for disability policy and practice. J Occup Rehab. 1993;3:179–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shaw WS, Robertson MM, Pransky G, McLellan RK. Employee perspectives on the role of supervisors to prevent workplace disability after injuries. J Occup Rehab. 2003;13:129–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Strunin L, Boden LI. Paths of reentry: employment experiences of injured workers. Am J Ind Med. 2000;38:373–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhang J. The role of trade unions under the corporatist model. Theory Pract Trade Unions. 2001;1:1–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Sun CL. Protecting workers’ rights or serving the party: the way forward for China’s trade unions. China Labour Bulletin, 2009.

  56. Brunarski D, Shaw L, Doupe L. Moving toward virtual interdisciplinary teams and a multi-stakeholder approach in community-based return-to-work care. Work. 2008;30(3):329–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J. Return-to-work: the importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work. 2000;17(1):11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Loisel P, José-Durand M, Baril R, Gervais J, Falardeau M. Interorganizational collaboration in occupational rehabilitation: perceptions of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team. J Occup Rehab. 2005;15(4):581–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all those who took part in this study, especially Mr. Yan-Wen Xu from the Guangdong Provincial Work Injury Rehabilitation Centre who was the project coordinator and helped arrange the focus groups discussions, the panel reviews, and other administrative work during the study. This work was supported by the Work Disability Prevention CIHR Strategic Training Program, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grant(s) FRN: 53909.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Andy S. K. Cheng

  2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Patrick Loisel

  3. Departments of Medical and Clinical Psychology and Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Michael Feuerstein

Authors
  1. Andy S. K. Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Loisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Feuerstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andy S. K. Cheng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheng, A.S.K., Loisel, P. & Feuerstein, M. Return-to-Work Activities in a Chinese Cultural Context. J Occup Rehabil 21 (Suppl 1), 44–54 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9272-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9272-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation