Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Return-to-Work After Work-Related Injury in the Construction Sector: A Scoping Review

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose Construction remains one of the most hazardous and disabling industries worldwide. This scoping review was completed to identify barriers and facilitators related to return-to-work (RTW) after work injury in the construction industry and gaps in the literature. Methods We searched ten databases from 1990 to 2020 for academic and grey literature. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. One team member charted the data and a second team member reviewed the coding. Articles were included if they identified any barriers or facilitators to RTW in the construction industry. The findings were synthesized into overarching themes. Results Our search identified 6706 articles for screening, with 22 articles included in the final sample. Three articles used qualitative methods, while the remaining articles were quantitative. The majority of articles were from North America and published in academic journals. Overall, findings are organized under seven main themes: worker sociodemographic characteristics; injury characteristics; worker motivation; workplace goodwill; modified work and disability management; work disability systems; and access to healthcare. Some barriers and facilitators are more relevant to the construction industry compared with the general working population. Conclusions: The findings suggest that accommodations are possible for this industry but barriers still exist in identifying suitable work. More research is needed to investigate the role of union involvement, work disability management systems, gender, and organizational characteristics, such as multiple worksites, in relation to RTW in the construction industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Brown S, Harris W, Brooks R, Xiuwen D. Fatal injury trends in the construction industry [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/DataBulletin-February-2021.pdf

  2. Brown S, Brooks R, Dong X. Nonfatal injury trends in the construction industry [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/DataBulletin-December2020.pdf

  3. Eurostat. Accidents at work statistics, 2017 [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Accidents_at_work_-_statistics_by_economic_activity

  4. Safe Work Australia. Key work health and safety statistics, Australia 2021 [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/resources-and-publications/statistical-reports/key-work-health-and-safety-statistics-australia-2021

  5. WorkSafeBC. Provincial overview [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/worksafebc/viz/Provincialoverview/Didyouknow

  6. Winge S, Albrechtsen E. Accident types and barrier failures in the construction industry. Saf Sci. 2018;1(105):158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Swuste P, Frijters A, Guldenmund F. Is it possible to influence safety in the building sector?: A literature review extending from 1980 until the present. Saf Sci. 2012;50(5):1333–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boschman JS, Van Der Molen HF, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH. Musculoskeletal disorders among construction workers: a one-year follow-up study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13(1):196.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. McLeod CBC, Macpherson RAR, Quirke W, Fan J, Amick III BCBC., Mustard CACA, et al. Work disability duration: a comparative analysis of three Canadian provinces. Vancouver, BC; 2017.

  10. Collie A, Lane TJ, Hassani-Mahmooei B, Thompson J, McLeod C. Does time off work after injury vary by jurisdiction? A comparative study of eight Australian workers’ compensation systems. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e010910.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Stice DC, Moore CL. A study of the relationship of the characteristics of injured workers receiving vocational rehabilitation services and their depression levels. J Rehabil. 2005;71(4):12.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dong XS, Wang X, Largay JA, Sokas R. Long-term health outcomes of work-related injuries among construction workers-findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Am J Ind Med. 2015;58(3):308–318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carnide N, Franche RL, Hogg-Johnson S, Côté P, Breslin FC, Severin CN, et al. Course of depressive symptoms following a workplace injury: a 12-month follow-up update. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(2):204–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Senthanar S, MacEachen E, Lippel K. Return to work and ripple effects on family of precariously employed injured workers. J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(1):72–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Proctor TJ, Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, McGeary DD. Unremitting health-care-utilization outcomes of tertiary rehabilitation of patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. J Bone Jt Surg A. 2004;86(1):62–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Waehrer GM, Dong XS, Miller T, Men Y, Haile E. Occupational injury costs and alternative employment in construction trades. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(11):1218–1227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Passmore D, Chae C, Borkovskaya V, Baker R, Yim JH. Severity of U.S. construction worker injuries 2015–2017. E3S Web Conf. 2019;97:2015–2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shafique M, Rafiq M. An overview of construction occupational accidents in Hong Kong: a recent trend and future perspectives. Appl Sci. 2019;9(10):2069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kines P, Spangenberg S, Dyreborg J. Prioritizing occupational injury prevention in the construction industry: Injury severity or absence? J Saf Res. 2007;38(1):53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rivara FP, Thompson DC. Prevention of falls in the construction industry: evidence for program effectiveness. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(4 SUPPL. 1):23–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–1294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Neuhauser F. Modified work and return to work: a review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil. 1998;8(2):113–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Franche R-L, Cullen K, Clarke J, Irvin E, Sinclair S, Frank J. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):607–631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. MacEachen E, Clarke J, Franche RL, Irvin E, Cullen K, Frank J, et al. Systematic review of the qualitative literature on return to work after injury. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32:257–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Krause N, Frank JW, Dasinger LK, Sullivan TJ, Sinclair SJ. Determinants of duration of disability and return-to-work after work-related injury and illness: challenges for future research. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40(4):464–484.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gensby U, Labriola M, Irvin E, Amick BC, Lund T. A classification of components of workplace disability management programs: results from a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24:220–241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Andersen LP, Kines P, Hasle P. Owner attitudes and self reported behavior towards modified work after occupational injury absence in small enterprises: a qualitative study. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(1):107–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Casso G, Cachin C, Van Melle G, Gerster JC. Return-to-work status 1 year after muscle reconditioning in chronic low back pain patients. Jt Bone Spine. 2004;71(2):136–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kosny A, Lifshen M, Pugliese D, Majesky G, Kramer D, Steenstra I, et al. Buddies in bad times? The role of co-workers after a work-related injury. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(3):438–449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gillen M. Injuries from construction falls. Functional limitations and return to work. AAOHN J. 1999;47(2):65–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kucera KL, Lipscomb HJ, Silverstein B. Medical care surrounding work-related back injury claims among Washington State Union Carpenters, 1989–2003. Work. 2011;39(3):321–330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lingard H, Saunders A. Occupational rehabilitation in the construction industry of Victoria. Constr Manag Econ. 2004;22(10):1091–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schneider S, Vi P. Ergonomics: promoting early return to pre-injury job using a rebar trying machine. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2005;2(5):D34–D37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schwatka NV, Butler LM, Rosecrance JC. Age in relation to worker compensation costs in the construction industry. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56(3):356–366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Winter J, Issa MHH, Quaigrain R, Dick K, Regehr JDD. Evaluating disability management in the Manitoban construction industry for injured workers returning to the workplace with a disability. Can J Civ Eng. 2016;43(2):109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Young AE, Choi YS. Work-related factors considered by sickness absent employees when estimating timeframes for returning to work. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0163674.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Anderson NJ, Bonauto DK, Adams D. Psychiatric diagnoses after Hospitalization with work-related burn injuries in Washington State. J Burn Care Res. 2011;32(3):369–378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Burdorf A, Naaktgeboren B, Post W. Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal sickness absence and return to work among welders and metal workers. Occup Environ Med. 1998;55(7):490–495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Durand M-J, Berthelette D, Loisel P, Imbeau D. Validation of the programme impact theory for a work rehabilitation programme. Work. 2012;42(4):495–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hankins AB, Reid CA. Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule of the return-to-work status of injured employees in Minnesota. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25(3):599–616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kucera KL, Lipscomb HJ, Silverstein B, Cameron W. Predictors of delayed return to work after back injury: a case-control analysis of union carpenters in Washington State. Am J Ind Med. 2009;52(11):821–830.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. SafeManitoba. Analysis of Disability Management Practices in the Construction Sector [Internet]. Manitoba, Canada; 2010. Available from: https://www.safemanitoba.com/PageRelatedDocuments/resources/disability_management_practicesin_the_construction_sector.pdf

  45. Welch LS, Hunting KL, Nessel-Stephens L. Chronic symptoms in construction workers treated for musculoskeletal injuries. Am J Ind Med. 1999;36(5):532–540.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cocker F, Sim MR, Kelsall H, Smith P. The association between time taken to report, lodge, and start wage replacement and return-to-work outcomes. J Occup Environ Med. 2018;60(7):622–630.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Issa MH, Quaigrain RA. Evaluating the Accessibility of the Manitoban Construction Industry to Physically Disabled Construction Workers and its Relation to Safety Performance [Internet]. Winnpeg, Manitoba, Canada; 2019. Available from: https://www.wcb.mb.ca/sites/default/files/files/FinalReport-EvaluatingtheAccessibilityoftheManitobanConstructionIndustry.pdf

  48. Quaigrain RA. Evaluating Disability Management in Construction Using Maturity Modelling and Metrics and its Relation to Safety Performance. University of Manitoba; 2019.

  49. Quaigrain RA, Issa MH. Construction disability management maturity model: case study within the Manitoban construction industry. Int J Work Heal Manag. 2021;14(3):274–291.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schofield K, Ryan AD, Dauner KN. Comparing disability and return to work outcomes between alternative and traditional workers’ compensation programs. Am J Ind Med. 2019;62(9):755–765.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Canada I. Canadian industry statistics (CIS): Construction industry (NAICS 23) [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/app/cis/summary-sommaire/23

  52. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Private sector construction industry (Ca. number 8772.0) [Internet]. Canberra, Australia; 2013. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/8772.02011-12?OpenDocument

  53. Waehrer GM, Dong XS, Miller T, Haile E, Men Y. Costs of occupational injuries in construction in the United States. Accid Anal Prev. 2007;39(6):1258–1266.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Amick BC, Hogg-Johnson S, Latour-Villamil D, Saunders R. Protecting construction worker health and safety in Ontario, Canada. J Occup Environ Med. 2015;57(12):1337–1342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Dunstan DA, MacEachen E. Bearing the brunt: co-workers’ experiences of work reintegration processes. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(1):44–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Iacuone D. “Real men are tough guys”: Hegemonic masculinity and safety in the construction industry. J Mens Stud. 2005;13(2):247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Styhre A. In the circuit of credibility: construction workers and the norms of ‘a good job.’ Constr Manag Econ. 2011;29(2):199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank University of British Columbia librarian Ursula Ellis for her support during the search phase and Minal Pachchigar (MP) for her contributions during the screening phase of the review.

Funding

Funding was provided from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario, Canada (Grant No. MCLE2016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Partnership for Work, Health and Safety, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada

    Kimberly Sharpe, Tina Afshar & Christopher McLeod

  2. Business School, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 de l′Université Boulevard, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada

    France St-Hilaire

  3. Institute for Work & Health, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1S5, Canada

    Christopher McLeod

Authors
  1. Kimberly Sharpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tina Afshar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. France St-Hilaire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher McLeod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CM and KS contributed to the design and implementation of the research. FSH and KS contributed substantially to the analysis of the data. KS and TA drafted the manuscript. CM and FSH provided critical review. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly Sharpe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharpe, K., Afshar, T., St-Hilaire, F. et al. Return-to-Work After Work-Related Injury in the Construction Sector: A Scoping Review. J Occup Rehabil 32, 664–684 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10028-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10028-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation