Vossen Emmie, Van Gestel Nicolette, Van der Heijden Beatrice I J M, Rouwette Etiënne A J A
a Institute for Management Research , Radboud University , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
b TIAS School for Business & Society , Tilburg University , Tilburg , The Netherlands.
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 May;39(10):969-977. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2016.1172675. Epub 2016 May 23.
This study aimed to explore if and why the return-to-work (RTW) experiences of various workplace stakeholders in the Netherlands and Denmark differ between physical and mental health conditions, and to understand the consequences of potentially different experiences for the RTW process in both health conditions.
We studied 21 cases of long-term sickness absence, and held a total of 61 semi-structured interviews with the various actors involved in these cases.
Physical cases were seen as "easy" and mental cases as "difficult" to manage, based on the visibility and predictability of health complaints. On this ground, assessing work ability and following required RTW actions were perceived as more urgent in mental than in physical cases. Despite these perceptions, in practice, the assessment of work ability seemed to impair the RTW process in mental cases (but not in physical ones), and the (non-)uptake of RTW actions appeared to have similar results in both mental and physical cases.
With these outcomes, the effectiveness of a differential approach is questioned, and the relevance of a bidirectional dialog on work ability and a phased RTW plan is highlighted, regardless of the absence cause. Our study also demonstrates how policymakers need to strike a balance between obligatory and permissive legislation to better involve workplaces in RTW issues. Implications for rehabilitation Both physically and mentally sick-listed employees could benefit from a bidirectional dialog on work ability as well as from a phased RTW plan. A greater role for employers in the RTW process should be accompanied with a support for sick-listed employees, in both physical and mental sickness absence cases. Dutch and Danish RTW legislation could be improved by carefully balancing obligatory and permissive rules and regulations to involve workplaces in RTW matters.
本研究旨在探讨荷兰和丹麦不同工作场所利益相关者在身体和心理健康状况下的重返工作岗位(RTW)经历是否存在差异以及原因,并了解两种健康状况下潜在不同经历对RTW过程的影响。
我们研究了21例长期病假案例,并与这些案例涉及的各类行为者总共进行了61次半结构化访谈。
基于健康投诉的可见性和可预测性,身体疾病案例被视为“容易”处理,而精神疾病案例被视为“困难”处理。基于此,在精神疾病案例中,评估工作能力和采取所需的RTW行动被认为比身体疾病案例更为紧迫。尽管有这些认知,但在实际操作中,工作能力评估似乎在精神疾病案例中(而非身体疾病案例中)阻碍了RTW过程,并且RTW行动的(未)采取在精神和身体疾病案例中似乎产生了相似的结果。
基于这些结果,差异化方法的有效性受到质疑,强调了就工作能力进行双向对话和分阶段RTW计划的相关性,而不论缺勤原因如何。我们的研究还表明政策制定者需要在强制性和许可性立法之间取得平衡,以便更好地让工作场所有所作为。对康复的启示身体和精神疾病列名员工均可从关于工作能力的双向对话以及分阶段RTW计划中受益。雇主在RTW过程中应发挥更大作用,同时应在身体和精神疾病缺勤案例中为列名员工提供支持。荷兰和丹麦的RTW立法可通过仔细平衡强制性和许可性规则与条例来改进,以使工作场所在RTW事务中发挥作用。