Work-related factors considered by sicknessabsent employees when estimating timeframes for returning to work
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 11, Issue: 10, Page: e0163674
2016
- 8Citations
- 29Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations8
- Citation Indexes8
- Captures29
- Readers29
- 29
Article Description
Introduction: Work-related factors have been found to be influential in shaping a number of return-towork outcomes including return-to-work expectations. Based on the idea that work-related factors have the potential for modification through workplace-based initiatives, this study involved a detailed examination of work-related factors referenced by workers as being taken into consideration when estimating timeframes for returning to work. Methods Focus groups were conducted with 30 employees, currently off work (< 3 months) due to a musculoskeletal condition. During the focus groups, participants wrote and spoke about the factors that they considered when forming their expectations for returning to work. Data were subjected to thematic content analysis. Results Discussions revealed that participants' considerations tended to differ depending on whether or not they had a job to return to. Those with jobs (n = 23) referenced specific influences such as working relationships, accommodations, physical and practical limitations, as well as concerns about their ability to do their job. Those without a job to return to (n = 7) talked about the ways they would go about finding work, and how long they thought this would take. Both groups mentioned the influence of wanting to find the "right" job, retraining and being limited due to the need for income. Conclusion Findings indicate that employees reference numerous work-related factors when estimating their timeframes for returning to work, and that many of these have been previously identified as relating to other return-to-work outcomes. Findings suggest the potential to improve return-to-work expectation through addressing work-related influences, and helping people work through the tasks they need to complete in order to move forward in the return-to-work process.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0163674; 10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.g001
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84991227086&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27706194; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163674; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163674; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163674&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t002; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163674&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.g001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163674
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know