nach oben

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

Erschienen in:

03.12.2022

Recognition During the Return-to-Work Process in Workers with Common Mental Disorders

verfasst von: Marc Corbière, Élyse Charette-Dussault, Nadine Larivière

Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Ausgabe 3/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose Considering worker’s perspective, the purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to document the meaning of the experience of recognition in the return to work (RTW) process of work after a sick leave due to a common mental disorder (CMD) and (2) to investigate the phenomenon of recognition for workers in the process of RTW after a sick leave due to a CMD, by evaluating the presence or absence of marks of recognition from salient RTW stakeholders stemming from different systems. Methods The Relational Caring Inquiry phenomenological method was used to explore the meaning of recognition during the return-to-work process and marks of recognition in a group of 20 workers who returned to their employment after a sick leave due to a CMD. In depth individual interviews were conducted with each participant. Results The definition of recognition that emerged from workers experiencing the RTW process is related to the behaviours and attitudes of various stakeholders, stemming from the work, health, insurance and social systems that allow them to feel appreciated, valued and respected, throughout the RTW process. Recognition was most often described as showing support, trust, respect for recovery and pace, and providing positive feedback. Conclusion The findings from this study could serve as guidelines in organizations regarding the RTW process, and in particular clarifying the roles and actions that different stakeholders could take in the workplace to stimulate expressions of meaningful recognition.

Nigatu YT, Liu Y, Uppal M, et al. Interventions for enhancing return to work in individuals with a common mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychol Med. 2016;46:3263–3274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291716002269.CrossRefPubMed

Gili M, Vicens C, Roca M, et al. Interventions for preventing relapse or recurrence of depression in primary health care settings: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2015;76:S16–S21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.07.035.CrossRefPubMed

Joyce S, Modini M, Christensen H, et al. Workplace interventions for common mental disorders: a systematic meta-review. Psychol Med. 2016;46:683–697. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715002408.CrossRefPubMed

Dewa CS, Loong D, Bonato S. Work outcomes of sickness absence related to mental disorders: a systematic literature review. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005533. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005533.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ervasti J, Joensuu M, Pentti J, et al. Prognostic factors for return to work after depression-related work disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res. 2017;95:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.07.024.CrossRefPubMed

Nielsen K, Yarker J, Munir F, et al. IGLOO: an integrated framework for sustainable return to work in workers with common mental disorders. Work Stress. 2018;32:400–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1438536.CrossRef

Negrini A, Corbière M, Lecomte T, et al. How can supervisors contribute to the return to work of employees who have experienced depression? J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28:279–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9715-0CrossRefPubMed

Corbière M, Mazaniello-Chézol M, Bastien M-F, et al. Stakeholders’ role and actions in the return-to-work process of employees on sick-leave due to common mental disorders: a scoping review. J Occup Rehabil. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-019-09861-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Scharf J, Angerer P, Müting G, et al. Return to work after common mental disorders: a qualitative study exploring the expectations of the involved stakeholders. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:6635. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186635.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Aas RW, Ellingsen KL, Lindøe P, et al. Leadership qualities in the return to work process: a content analysis. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18:335–346.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Tiedtke C, de Casterlé BD, Donceel P, et al. Workplace support after breast cancer treatment: recognition of vulnerability. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:1770–1776. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.982830.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Renger D, Miché M, Casini A. Professional recognition at work: the protective role of esteem, respect, and care for burnout among employees. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62:202–209. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001782.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Molinier P, Flottes A. Travail et santé mentale: approches cliniques [Work and mental health: clinical approaches]. Travail et emploi. 2012;129:51–66.CrossRef

14.

Brun J-P, Dugas N. La reconnaissance au travail: analyse d’un concept riche de sens [Recognition at work: analysis of a meaningful concept]. Gestion. 2005;30:79–88.CrossRef

15.

Saint-Arnaud L, Saint-Jean M, Rhéaume J. Regard de l’autre et dynamique de la reconnaissance : un effet loupe sur les personnes qui ont des troubles mentaux au travail [The gaze of the other and the dynamics of recognition: a magnifying glass effect on people with mental disorders at work]. Travailler. 2004;12:99–116.CrossRef

16.

Guéguen H, Malochet G. Les théories de la reconnaissance [Theories of recognition]. Paris: La Découverte; 2012.CrossRef

17.

Lazzeri C, Nour S. De L’Inclusion–Reconnaissance et Identification Sociale [On Inclusion - Social recognition and identification]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest; 2009.

18.

Roelen C, Thorsen S, Heymans M, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for long-term sickness absence based on occupational health survey variables. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40:168–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1247471.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Dorvil H, Kirouac L, Dupuis G. Les troubles mentaux en milieu de travail et dans les médias de masse [Mental disorders in the workplace and in the mass media]. Presses de l'Université du Québec; 2015.

20.

Ricoeur P. Parcours de la reconnaissance [Recognition course]. Trois études, Paris: Stock; 2004.

21.

Roche A. Définition de deux systèmes dialectiques de reconnaissance présents au sein des organisations [Definition of two dialectical systems of recognition present in organizations]. Manag Hum Entrep 2015:20–44.

22.

La HA. société du mépris [The society of contempt]. Paris: La Découverte; 2006.

23.

La HA. lutte pour la reconnaissance [The struggle for recognition]. Paris: Édition du Cerf; 2000.

24.

Tiedtke C, Donceel P, de Rijk A, et al. Return to work following breast cancer treatment: the employers’ side. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24:399–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-013-9465-6.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Brun J-P, Dugas N. An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. Int J Hum Resource Manag. 2008;19:716–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190801953723.CrossRef

26.

Worms F. Revivre. Éprouver nos blessures et nos ressources [To relive. To experience our wounds and our resources]. Paris: Flammarion; 2015.

27.

Boštjančič E, Galič K. Returning to work after sick leave—the role of work demands and resources, self-efficacy, and social support. Front Psychol. 2020;11:661.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Fraser N. Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale? Reconnaissance et redistribution [What is social justice? Recognition and redistribution]. Paris: La Découverte; 2005.

29.

Merino MD, Privado J. Does employee recognition affect positive psychological functioning and well-being? Spanish J Psychol 2015;18:E64.

30.

Cara C. Managers’ subjugation and empowerment of caring practices: a relational caring inquiry with staff nurses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Colorado. UMI Dissertation Services; 1997.

31.

O’Reilly L, Cara C. La phénoménologie selon l’école de pensée de Husserl [Phenomenology according to the Husserl school of thought]. In Corbière M Larivière N, editors. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes: dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé [Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods: in research in the humanities, social and health sciences]. 2nd ed. Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec; 2020.

32.

Buys NJ, Selander J, Sun J. Employee experience of workplace supervisor contact and support during long-term sickness absence. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41:808–814.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Coutu M-F, Légaré F, Durand M-J, et al. Operationalizing a shared decision making model for work rehabilitation programs: a consensus process. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25:141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9532-7.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Boileau-Falardeau F, Turcotte J-R, Lafleur P-A, et al. Dilemmes des médecins traitants lors du retour au travail de personnes aux prises avec un trouble mental courant: illustration par des vignettes cliniques [Treating physicians’ dilemmas in returning to work for people with a common mental disorder: clinical vignettes]. Santé mentale au Québec. 2019;44:219–237.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Légaré F, Stacey D, Turcotte S, et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2014.

36.

Armaou M, Schumacher L, Grunfeld EA. Cancer survivors’ social context in the return to work process: narrative accounts of social support and social comparison information. J Occup Rehabil. 2018;28:504–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9735-9.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Pfister IB, Jacobshagen N, Kälin W, et al. How does appreciation lead to higher job satisfaction? J Manag Psychol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2018-0555.CrossRef

38.

Lysaght RM, Larmour-Trode S. An exploration of social support as a factor in the return-to-work process. Work. 2008;30:255–266.PubMed

39.

Corbière M, Renard M, St-Arnaud L, et al. Union perceptions of factors related to the return to work of employees with depression. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25:335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9542-5.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Geue PE. Positive practices in the workplace: Impact on team climate, work engagement, and task performance. J Appl Behav Sci. 2018;54:272–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318773459.CrossRef

41.

Yagil D, Goldblatt H, Cohen M. Dyadic resources in the return to work of cancer survivors: exploring supervisor–employee perspectives. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41:2151–2158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1459885.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Gilbert SL, Kelloway EK. Leadership, recognition and well-being: a moderated mediational model. Can J Admin Sci. 2018;35:523–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1477.CrossRef

43.

Montani F, Boudrias J-S, Pigeon M. Employee recognition, meaningfulness and behavioural involvement: test of a moderated mediation model. Int J Hum Resource Manag. 2020;31:356–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1288153.CrossRef

44.

Christopherson RM, Fadyl JK, Lewis GN. Return-to-work expectations and workplace supports in New Zealand: injured workers’ perspectives. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;44:702–709.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Corbière M, Mazaniello-Chézol M, Lecomte T, et al. Developing a collaborative and sustainable return to work program for employees with common mental disorders: a participatory research with public and private organizations. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44:5199–5211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1931481.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Poulsen MG, Khan A, Poulsen EE, et al. Work engagement in cancer care: The power of co-worker and supervisor support. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016;21:134–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2015.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Musti MA, Collina N, Stivanello E, et al. Perceived work ability at return to work in women treated for breast cancer: a questionnaire-based study. Med Lav. 2018;109:407–419. https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v110i6.7241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Bernoux P. Reconnaissance et appropriation : pour une anthropologie du travail [Recognition and appropriation: for an anthropology of work]. Esprit 2011;October:158–8.

49.

Deslandes G, Bouilloud J-P. Pour une éthique d’après la reconnaissance [For an ethic after recognition]. Manag Hum Entreprise. 2019;34:88–102.

50.

Butow P, Laidsaar-Powell R, Konings S, et al. Return to work after a cancer diagnosis: a meta-review of reviews and a meta-synthesis of recent qualitative studies. J Cancer Surviv. 2020;14:114–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-019-00828-z.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Toth K, Yvon F, Villotti P, et al. Disclosure dilemmas: how people with a mental health condition perceive and manage disclosure at work. Disabil Rehabil. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1998667.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Recognition During the Return-to-Work Process in Workers with Common Mental Disorders
verfasst von: Marc Corbière
Élyse Charette-Dussault
Nadine Larivière
Publikationsdatum: 03.12.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Ausgabe 3/2023
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10087-y

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2023

Who Returns to work? Exploring the Role of Interpersonal Problems in Occupational Rehabilitation

A Systematic Review of Workplace Physical Activity Coaching

Reducing Shoulder Complaints in Employees with High Occupational Shoulder Exposures: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Study (The Shoulder-Café Study)

The Prevalence and Determinants of Return to Work in Head and Neck Cancer Survivors: A Scoping Review

The Prevalence of Mental Health Service Use in Australian Workers with Accepted Workers’ Compensation Claims for Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in the Return-to-Work of Workers Experiencing Injury or Illness: A Systematic Review