Display options
Cite
Lai HS, Szeto GP, Chan CC. Injured workers' perception of loss and gain in the return to work process. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2017;10:7-16doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S119479.
Lai, H. S., Szeto, G. P., & Chan, C. C. (2017). Injured workers' perception of loss and gain in the return to work process. Risk management and healthcare policy, 107-16. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S119479
Lai, Hon Sun, et al. "Injured workers' perception of loss and gain in the return to work process." Risk management and healthcare policy vol. 10 (2017): 7-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S119479
Lai HS, Szeto GP, Chan CC. Injured workers' perception of loss and gain in the return to work process. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2017 Feb 07;10:7-16. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S119479. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28223852; PMCID: PMC5304984.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2017 Feb 07;10:7-16. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S119479. eCollection 2017.

Injured workers' perception of loss and gain in the return to work process.

Risk management and healthcare policy

Hon Sun Lai, Grace Py Szeto, Chetwyn Ch Chan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; Total Rehabilitation Management (Hong Kong) Limited.
  2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
  3. Applied Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

PMID: 28223852 PMCID: PMC5304984 DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S119479

Abstract

When a worker is injured at work, he has to face a tough decision-making process about when and how to return to work (RTW). This study tests how the prospect theory can be applied to influence the injured workers' perceptions about this important choice. One hundred forty-one injured workers were presented with wage- and pain-related information in four different message framing (negatively or positively) and precision (smaller or larger number) conditions. After exposure to the specific combination of this wage and pain information, the participants were asked to express intentions to RTW in terms of perceived chance, confidence, and anticipated sick leave duration. When asked to predict their RTW outcome, 101 participants (72.3%) responded favorably, whereas only 40 (27.7%) indicated an expectation for staying on sick leave. The present results did not show significant differences in the participants' responses to the positively and negatively framed information about wage and pain. However, it was noted that the control group that was presented with positive framing for both "wage" and "pain" information showed higher scores in expectation and confidence for RTW, whereas the Ambivalent Group that had both negative messages showed lower scores. Seventy-nine participants who had ≥60% perceived improvement in condition were selected for further analysis, and those who were presented with "wage loss" information rated significantly higher perceived chance of RTW than those in the "pain gain" group. More in-depth investigation is warranted on this topic, with a larger sample of injured workers to investigate the effects of message framing on the decision-making process about RTW.

Keywords: compensation; injury; rehabilitation; wages

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  1. J Occup Environ Med. 2005 Apr;47(4):428-33 - PubMed
  2. Disabil Rehabil. 2004 Jun 3;26(11):625-34 - PubMed
  3. CMAJ. 2002 Mar 19;166(6):749-54 - PubMed
  4. Clin J Pain. 1995 Mar;11(1):6-21 - PubMed
  5. Pain. 2001 Oct;94(1):7-15 - PubMed
  6. J Occup Rehabil. 2016 Jun;26(2):150-9 - PubMed
  7. J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Dec;17(4):766-81 - PubMed
  8. J Occup Rehabil. 2015 Mar;25(1):240-55 - PubMed
  9. J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Jun;17(2):327-52 - PubMed
  10. J Occup Health Psychol. 2010 Oct;15(4):409-20 - PubMed
  11. J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):459-74 - PubMed
  12. J Occup Rehabil. 2002 Jun;12(2):99-110 - PubMed
  13. J Occup Rehabil. 2012 Jun;22(2):230-40 - PubMed
  14. J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Sep;17(3):450-72 - PubMed
  15. Am J Ind Med. 2001 Oct;40(4):464-84 - PubMed
  16. J Occup Rehabil. 2010 Sep;20(3):378-86 - PubMed
  17. J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Dec;17(4):712-26 - PubMed
  18. Prog Behav Modif. 1992;28:183-218 - PubMed
  19. J Occup Rehabil. 2004 Dec;14(4):267-79 - PubMed
  20. J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):453-7 - PubMed
  21. J Occup Rehabil. 2005 Dec;15(4):525-42 - PubMed

Publication Types