Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Dec;26(4):448-464.
doi: 10.1007/s10926-016-9677-7.

Implementation Science and Employer Disability Practices: Embedding Implementation Factors in Research Designs

Collaborators, Affiliations
Review

Implementation Science and Employer Disability Practices: Embedding Implementation Factors in Research Designs

Chris J Main et al. J Occup Rehabil. 2016 Dec.

Erratum in

Abstract

Purpose For work disability research to have an impact on employer policies and practices it is important for such research to acknowledge and incorporate relevant aspects of the workplace. The goal of this article is to summarize recent theoretical and methodological advances in the field of Implementation Science, relate these to research of employer disability management practices, and recommend future research priorities. Methods The authors participated in a year-long collaboration culminating in an invited 3-day conference, "Improving Research of Employer Practices to Prevent Disability", held October 14-16, 2015, in Hopkinton, MA, USA. The collaboration included a topical review of the literature, group conference calls to identify key areas and challenges, drafting of initial documents, review of industry publications, and a conference presentation that included feedback from peer researchers and a question/answer session with a special panel of knowledge experts with direct employer experience. Results A 4-phase implementation model including both outer and inner contexts was adopted as the most appropriate conceptual framework, and aligned well with the set of process evaluation factors described in both the work disability prevention literature and the grey literature. Innovative interventions involving disability risk screening and psychologically-based interventions have been slow to gain traction among employers and insurers. Research recommendations to address this are : (1) to assess organizational culture and readiness for change in addition to individual factors; (2) to conduct process evaluations alongside controlled trials; (3) to analyze decision-making factors among stakeholders; and (4 ) to solicit input from employers and insurers during early phases of study design. Conclusions Future research interventions involving workplace support and involvement to prevent disability may be more feasible for implementation if organizational decision-making factors are imbedded in research designs and interventions are developed to take account of these influences.

Keywords: Disability prevention; Implementation factors; Research priorities; Workplace interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Chris J. Main declares that he has no conflict of interest. Michael K. Nicholas declares that he has no conflict of interest. William S. Shaw declares that he has no conflict of interest. Lois E. Tetrick declares that she has no conflict of interest. Mark G. Ehrhart declares that he has no conflict of interest. Glenn Pransky declares that he has no conflict of interest. Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors, so there was no need for ethical approval or informed consent.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Key features of the CFIR model [45] (reprinted with permission)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Detailed description of CFIR model components [45] (reprinted with permission)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Case study of an on-going screening and early pain management program being implemented in a network of regional hospitals

References

    1. Young AE, Viikari-Juntura E, Boot CR, Chan C, Gimeno Ruiz De Porras D, Linton SJ et al. Workplace outcomes in work-disability prevention research: a review with recommendations for future research. J Occup Rehabil. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10926-016-9675-9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Waddell G, Burton AK. Is work good for your health and well-being? London: The Stationery Office; 2006.
    1. Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jané-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Bloom L, Fathima S et al. The global economic burden of noncommunicable diseases. World Economic Forum; 2011.
    1. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Pransky G, Nicholas MK, Anema JR, Linton SJ et al. Employer policies and practices to manage and prevent disability: foreword to the special issue. J Occup Rehabil. 2016. doi:10.1007/s10926-016-9658-x. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, Van Tulder M, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15:507–524. doi: 10.1007/s10926-005-8031-2. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources