Scoping review of claimants’ experiences within Australian workers’ compensation systems

Dean, Anne-Marie; Matthewson, Mandy; Buultjens, Melissa; Murphy, Gregory C.

doi:10.1071/ah17244

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the returning worker understands the roles, rights, and responsibilities they and other stakeholders have in the RTW process, they are able to better navigate and actively engage with that process ( Dean et al, 2019 ). Role clarity is the extent of an individual’s understanding about their duties and expectations of their tasks and roles ( Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008 ).…”

Section: Mitigating the Suffering That Workers Experience During The Return-to-work Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing and Mitigating Suffering in the Return-to-Work Process

Woods

Matthewson

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Each year thousands of workers experience a serious illness or injury that necessitates time off work and a subsequent re-engagement with the work environment. In Australia, workers’ compensation legislation mandates the return-to-work (RTW) process is formal, structured, and negotiated between the worker, their employer, health care professionals and their RTW coordinator. How this is executed by those parties directly influences whether the RTW process is supportive and successful, or exacerbates the suffering of returning workers by causing them to feel ostracised, exposed, and vulnerable in their workplace. In this article, we examine how the RTW process can cause physical, emotional, social, and existential suffering for returning workers. We then discuss how the suffering that workers experience can be mitigated by five key factors: clarity of roles in the RTW process, alignment of worker and employer expectations, the advocacy provided by the RTW coordinator, the support provided for the worker’s psychological wellbeing, and the RTW literacy of supervisors and colleagues.

show abstract

Section: Mitigating the Suffering That Workers Experience During The Return-to-work Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing and Mitigating Suffering in the Return-to-Work Process

Woods

Matthewson

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compensation and income support processes operate in adversarial and scrutinising ways, and engaging in these has been shown to create stress and negatively impact mental health, functional abilities, social inclusion, and quality of life [7,8] . Receiving inadequate care or support after a workplace injury is associated with increased risk of psychosocial difficulties in returning to work [9,10] . In-terventions that act to increase individual empowerment and psychosocial wellbeing may increase resilience in engaging with needed compensatory, health and welfare systems, as well as promote quicker recovery from the workplace injury itself [7] .…”

Section: Psychosocial Issues In Workplace Injury and Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social prescribing as an intervention for people with work-related injuries and psychosocial difficulties in Australia

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychosocial interventions that encourage optimism and connectedness can promote workplace injury recovery and improve wellbeing. A mixed-methods evaluation of a twelve-week program for injured workers in Sydney, Australia, explored three research questions: if a social prescribing approach contributed to (1) increased social and economic participation, (2) improved psychological functioning and quality of life, and (3) decreased health service utilisation. Retrospective analysis of pre-and post-intervention data was undertaken, involving quantitative indicators of social, economic, and health status using validated psychosocial assessment tools (n = 175). These findings were augmented with data from the insurance regulator (n = 177) and insights from link worker documentation of participant activity (n = 178), a program satisfaction survey (n = 167), and participant interviews (n = 44). The social prescribing program was associated with significant improvements in frequency and confidence in participating in social activities and returning to work, in all measures of biopsychosocial wellbeing, and in reducing health service use. Qualitative information identified a range of personal improvements, including greater self-awareness, social connections, and ability to cope with the effects of injury and employment loss. This is the first known Australian study to evaluate a social prescribing intervention for psychosocial rehabilitation for injured workers in Australia. These findings suggest that a social prescribing approach is effective, but further consideration of barriers, including workplace characteristics and procedural difficulties in accessing occupational rehabilitation services, is needed.

show abstract

“…In Australia, compensation schemes differ across states, for example, in terms of the rate and duration of benefit, care and assistance provisions, classification of impairments, definitions of work and workers, and waiting periods for payment of income replacement. 4 Contrary to what might be expected, there is growing evidence that workers’ compensation (the pursuit or receipt of compensation), may be negatively associated with health outcomes both in Australia, 5 as well as internationally such as in Canada 6 and the United States. 7 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is known that for many claimants in Australia, the experience of workers’ compensation can be highly stressful, 5 , 11 and many report perceptions of injustice, hostile interactions and poor claims administration. 12 Studies of compensation claimants within Australia (drawing on mixed samples of both transport accident and workers’ compensation schemes) have found associations between compensation and post-traumatic stress disorder, 13 and have identified that the stress of engaging with compensation schemes and the continued requirement to demonstrate incapacity can negatively impact on long-term recovery, with sustained effects observed on symptoms of depression and anxiety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%