Introduction Workplace disability prevention is important, but stakeholders can differ in their appreciation of such interventions. We present a responsive evaluation of a workplace disability prevention intervention in a Canadian healthcare organization. Three groups of stakeholders were included: designers of the intervention, deliverers, and workers. The aim was to examine the appreciation of this intervention by analyzing the discrepancies with respect to what these various stakeholders see as the causes of work disability, what the intervention should aim at to address this problem, and to what extent the intervention works in practice. Methods A qualitative research method was used, including data-triangulation: (a) documentary materials; (b) semi-structured interviews with the deliverers and workers (n = 14); (c) participatory observations of group meetings (n = 6); (d) member-checking meetings (n = 3); (e) focus-group meetings (n = 2). A grounded theory approach, including some ethnographic methodology, was used for the data-analysis. Results Stakeholders’ perceptions of causes for work disability differ, as do preferred strategies for prevention. Designers proposed work-directed measures to change the workplace and work organizations, and individual-directed measures to change workers’ behaviour. Deliverers targeted individual-directed measures, however, workers were mostly seeking work-directed measures. To assess how the intervention was working, designers sought a wide range of outcome measures. Deliverers focused on measurable outcomes targeted at reducing work time-loss. Workers perceived that this intervention offered short-term benefits yet fell short in ensuring sustainable return-to-work. Conclusion This study provides understanding of where discrepancies between stakeholders’ perceptions about interventions come from. Our findings have implications for workplace disability prevention intervention development, implementation and evaluation criteria.

No abstract

• It is not that employees are not able to think along or decide on their reintegration trajectory but rather they are expected to do so at times when they cannot oversee their illness and/or recovery trajectory. • Settings out reintegration procedures that are inflexible in practice do not recognize that employee involvement in work reintegration trajectories can develop over time. • The disability management professional has a central role in organizing and supporting employee involvement in work reintegration, however, the employees do not experience this is indeed happening.

BACKGOUND: In Canada and other countries, sickness absence among workers is a significant concern. Local return-to-work policies developed by both management and workers' representatives are preferred to tackle the problem. OBJECTIVE: This article examines how managers perceive this local bipartite agreed upon return-to-work policy, wherein a social constructivist view on the policy process is taken. METHODS: In-depth interviews were held with 10 managers on their experiences with execution of this policy in a Canadian healthcare organization. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and qualitative analyses were completed to gain deep insight into the managers' perspectives. RESULTS: Results show that the managers viewed themselves as a linchpin between the workplace and the worker. They did not feel heard by the other stakeholders, wrestled with worker's limitations, struggled getting plans adjusted and became overextended to meet return-to-work objectives. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that the managers felt unable to meet the responsibilities the policy demanded and got less involved in the return-to-work process than this policy intended. RTW policy needs to balance on the one hand, flexibility to safeguard active involvement of managers and, on the other hand, strictness regarding taking responsibility by stakeholders, particularly the health care and re-integration professionals.