↓ Skip to main content

Fear of (re)injury and return to work following compensable injury: qualitative insights from key stakeholders in Victoria, Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fear of (re)injury and return to work following compensable injury: qualitative insights from key stakeholders in Victoria, Australia
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4226-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha Bunzli, Nabita Singh, Danielle Mazza, Alex Collie, Agnieszka Kosny, Rasa Ruseckaite, Bianca Brijnath

Abstract

Return to work (RTW) is important for recovery post-injury. Fear of (re)injury is a strong predictor of delayed RTW, and therefore much attention has been given to addressing injured workers' fear beliefs. However, RTW is a socially-negotiated process and it may be important to consider the wider social context of the injured worker, including the beliefs of the key people involved in their RTW journey. This paper involves data collected as part of a wider study in which semi-structured interviews explored RTW from the perspectives of 93 key stakeholders: injured workers, GPs, employers and insurance case managers in Victoria, Australia. Inductive analysis of interview transcripts identified fear of (re)injury as a salient theme across all stakeholder groups. This presented an opportunity to analyse how the wider social context of the injured worker may influence fear and avoidance behaviour. Two co-authors performed inductive analysis of the theme 'fear of (re)injury'. Codes identified in the data were grouped into five categories. Between and within category analysis revealed three themes describing the contextual factors that may influence fear avoidance and RTW behaviour. Theme one described how injured workers engaged in a process of weighing up the risk of (re)injury in the workplace against the perceived benefits of RTW. Theme two described how workplace factors could influence an injured workers' perception of the risk of (re)injury in the workplace, including confidence that the source of the injury had been addressed, the availability and suitability of alternative duties. Theme three described other stakeholders' reluctance to accept injured workers back at work because of the fear that they might reinjure themselves. Our findings illustrate the need for a contextualised perspective of fear avoidance and RTW behaviour that includes the beliefs of other important people surrounding the injured worker (e.g. employers, family members, GPs). Existing models of health behaviour such as The Health Beliefs Model may provide useful frameworks for interventions targeting the affective, cognitive, social, organisational and policy factors that can influence fear avoidance or facilitate RTW following injury.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Psychology 9 11%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,678,105
of 23,298,349 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,584
of 15,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,550
of 310,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#170
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,298,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,844 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.