Australian Employee Perspectives on Disability Management in Relation to Job Satisfaction, Physical and Mental Health, Workplace Morale and Reduced Sickness Absence

Abstract

Disability management is now recognised as an effective means of managing the increasing global costs of injury and disability. However, research on disability management particularly employee perceptions of its value, are sparse. This paper reports on the Australian findings of a large international project that included Canada, China, Switzerland and Australia, which examined employee perspectives of disability management related to job satisfaction, physical and mental health, workplace morale and reduced sickness absence. Data was collected from 365 employees in 10 large private and public companies using an online survey tool that focused on three components of a disability management program — disability prevention (DP), stay at work (SAW) and return to work (RTW) programs — in relation to the dependent variables of job satisfaction, physical and mental health, workplace morale, sickness absence. Multivariate regression was used to predict disability management's influence on the dependent variables. Results demonstrated positive perceptions regarding the perceived benefits of disability management to both individual employees and their perceptions of coworkers. It was apparent that each component of a disability management program (DP, SAW, and RTW) is positively related to job satisfaction, physical and mental health, workplace morale and reduced sickness absence Disability management programs were perceived as more beneficial in private, as opposed to public, workplaces; however, no differences were evident according to union status or gender of the respondent. It is possible disability management may impact on organisational productivity via variables associated with workplace culture, as well as through the direct benefits flowing from preventing and managing injury. Given the significant costs associated with absenteeism, an outcome of interest to many employers was the finding that employees perceived SAW programs as the most beneficial in terms of reducing absenteeism for both themselves and their coworkers.

The Influence of Social Support and Social Integration Factors on Return to Work Outcomes for Individuals with Work-Related Injuries: A Systematic Review

“…Eleven studies [26–36] were identified that explored injured worker perspectives on key social factors that influenced their RTW process. Eight of these studies [29, 30, 32–37] reported the presence of social facilitators, while nine reported social barriers.…”

“…Regular contact and good communication with the employer was identified as a facilitator of RTW in two medium quality studies [29, 34]. In four medium quality studies, supervisor communication was found to be most important for injured workers’ expectations of the RTW process, and in assisting with the worker's informational and practical RTW needs [29, 32, 36, 37]. Being able to discuss the injury or illness was also found to be important when communicating with co-workers in one medium quality study [30].…”

“…RTW was shown to be supported, in one high quality and two medium quality studies, when injured workers received genuine concern from their co-workers [32, 35, 36], and from supervisors in two medium quality studies [32, 37]. RTW was also benefited when workers felt they were ‘more than a number’ [33], or worked within an organisational culture of genuine care [29]; in one medium quality study each.…”

“…Injured workers who experienced mistreatment or obstacles in navigating the workers’ compensation or internal RTW systems benefitted from support from peers who were knowledgeable and experienced in the RTW process and were on their side [29, 33]. Family members also provided advocacy support when questions of injury or symptom legitimacy were raised [34].…”

“…Contact from the workplace (e.g., employer, supervisors) that was delayed, infrequent, or did not provide meaningful information on the claims or RTW process was perceived to be a barrier to RTW in one high quality and two medium quality studies [29, 31, 38]. A lack of ongoing support from supervisors or employers and negative interactions were also barriers in the RTW process in one high quality and five medium quality studies [29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38].…”