Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How does Gender Influence Sustainable Return to Work Following Prolonged Work Disability? An Interpretive Description Study

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

Abstract

Purpose: A sustainable return to work (S-RTW) following prolonged work disability poses different challenges, depending on gender. This article provides a synthesis of gender differences in the issues and factors influencing the S-RTW of workers following such a disability. Methods: Using an interpretive description method, an integrative review was conducted of the literature on gender differences in S-RTW issues and factors associated with four major causes of work disability. The initial review concerned the 2000–2016 literature; it was subsequently updated for November 2016–March 2020. To explore and contextualise the results, four focus groups were held with stakeholders representing the workplace, insurance, and healthcare systems and workers. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed. Results: A total of 47 articles were reviewed, and 35 stakeholders participated in the focus groups. The prevailing traditional gender roles were found to have a major gender-specific influence on the attitudes, behaviours, processes and outcomes associated with S-RTW. These differences related to the (1) cumulative workload, (2) work engagement, and (3) expressed and addressed needs. Conclusions: The results highlight the importance of taking into account both professional and personal aspects when integrating gender issues into the assessment of workers' needs and subsequently into interventions.

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

Notes

  1. See Online Appendix for the detailed combinations of the keywords used.

  2. Articles that dealt with two work absence causes counted as .5 of an article for each of the targeted causes.

  3. The concept of “biographical disruption” referred to by some of the studies cited here is used consistently with the one originally developed by Bury in 1982 [105].

References

  1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Sickness, disability and work: breaking the barriers [Internet]. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2010 (Accessed 25 Jul 2018). p. 165. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264088856-en

  2. Deraspe R. Current issues in mental health in Canada: the economic impact of mental illness. Ottawa: Library of Parliament; 2013. p. 8 Publication No. 2013–87-E.

  3. Coyte PC, Asche CV, Croxford R, Chan B. The economic cost of musculoskeletal disorders in Canada. Arthritis Care Res. 1998;11(5):315–325.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Roelen CAM, Koopmans PC, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ. Recurrence of medically certified sickness absence according to diagnosis: a sickness absence register study. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(1):113–121.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Sick on the job? Myths and realities about mental health and work [Internet]. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2012 (Accessed 28 Jun 2019). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264124523-en

  6. Dewa CS, Chau N, Dermer S. Examining the comparative incidence and costs of physical and mental health-related disabilities in an employed population. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(7):758–762.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(1):11–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alberts SC, Archie EA, Gesquiere LR, Altmann J, Vaupel JW, Christensen K. The male-female health-survival paradox: a comparative perspective on sex differences in aging and mortality. In: Weinstein M, Lane MA, editors. Sociality, hierarchy, health: comparative biodemography: a collection of papers. Washington DC: National Academies Press (US); 2014. p. 329–363.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Arcas MM, Delclos GL, Torá-Rocamora I, Martínez JM, Benavides FG. Gender differences in the duration of non-work-related sickness absence episodes due to musculoskeletal disorders. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(11):1065–1073.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Leijon M, Hensing G, Alexanderson K. Sickness absence due to musculoskeletal diagnoses: association with occupational gender segregation. Scand J Public Health. 2004;32(2):94–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Laaksonen M, Mastekaasa A, Martikainen P, Rahkonen O, Piha K, Lahelma E. Gender differences in sickness absence—the contribution of occupation and workplace. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(5):394–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaptein SA, Gignac MAM, Badley EM. Differences in the workforce experiences of women and men with arthritis disability: a population health perspective. Arthritis Care Res. 2009;61(5):605–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mital A, Desai A, Mital A. Return to work after a coronary event. J Cardpulm Rehabil Prev. 2004;24(6):365–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marino P, Luis Sagaon T, Laetitia M, Anne-Gaelle LC-S. Sex differences in the return-to-work process of cancer survivors 2 years after diagnosis: results from a large French population-based sample. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(10):1277–1284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van Muijen P, Weevers NL, Snels IA, Duijts SF, Bruinvels DJ, Schellart AJ, et al. Predictors of return to work and employment in cancer survivors: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22(2):144–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chappert F, Théry L. Égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et santé au travail. Comment le genre transforme-t-il l’intervention sur les conditions de travail? [Equality between women and men and occupational health. How does gender transform intervention on working conditions?]. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé. [Interdisciplinary perspectives on Work and Health]. 2016. https://doi.org/10.4000/pistes.4882.

  17. World Economic Forum. The global gender gap report 2018. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2018. p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McGeary DD, Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Anagnostis C, Proctor TJ. Gender-related differences in treatment outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Spine J. 2003;3(3):197–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lillefjell M. Gender differences in psychosocial influence and rehabilitation outcomes for work-disabled individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2006;16(4):659–674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hansson E, Hansson T, Jonsson R. Predictors for work ability and disability in men and women with low-back or neck problems. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(6):780–793.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Kidner CL, McGeary DD. Are gender, marital status or parenthood risk factors for outcome of treatment for chronic disabling spinal disorders? J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(2):191–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dixon AN, Gatchel RJ. Gender and parental status as predictors of chronic low back pain disability: a prospective study. J Occup Rehabil. 1999;9(3):195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Keogh E, McCracken LM, Eccleston C. Gender moderates the association between depression and disability in chronic pain patients. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(5):413–422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Denison E, Asenlöf P, Lindberg P. Self-efficacy, fear avoidance, and pain intensity as predictors of disability in subacute and chronic musculoskeletal pain patients in primary health care. Pain. 2004;111(3):245–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gjesdal S, Bratberg E, Mæland JG. Gender differences in disability after sickness absence with musculoskeletal disorders: five-year prospective study of 37,942 women and 26,307 men. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12(1):37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Gjesdal S, Bratberg E. The role of gender in long-term sickness absence and transition to permanent disability benefits. Results from a multiregister based, prospective study in Norway 1990–1995. Eur J Public Health. 2002;12(3):180–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lederer V, Rivard M, Mechakra-Tahiri SD. Gender differences in personal and work-related determinants of return-to-work following long-term disability: a 5-year cohort study. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(4):522–531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrold LR, Savageau JA, Pransky G, Benjamin K. Understanding the role of sex differences in work injuries: implications for primary care practice. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(1):36–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lidwall U, Marklund S, Voss M. Work–family interference and long-term sickness absence: a longitudinal cohort study. Eur J Public Health. 2010;20(6):676–681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Väänänen A, Kumpulainen R, Kevin MV, Ala-Mursula L, Kouvonen A, Kivimäki M, et al. Work-family characteristics as determinants of sickness absence: a large-scale cohort study of three occupational grades. J Occup Health Psychol. 2008;13(2):181–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Garrett S. Gender. London: Tavistock; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Goffman E. Gender display. In: Goffman E, editor. Gender advertisements: communications and culture. London: Palgrave; 1976. p. 1–9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Lane SD, Cibula DA. Gender and health. In: Albrecht GL, Fitzpatrick R, Scrimshaw SC, editors. Handbook of social studies in health and medicine. London: Sage; 2000. p. 136–153.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. West C, Zimmerman DH. Doing gender. Gend Soc. 1987;1(2):125–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Côté D, Coutu M-F. A critical review of gender issues in understanding prolonged disability related to musculoskeletal pain: how are they relevant to rehabilitation? Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(2):87–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Verdonk P, de Rijk A, Klinge I, de Vries A. Sickness absence as an interactive process: gendered experiences of young, highly educated women with mental health problems. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(2):300–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Krieger N. Genders, sexes, and health: what are the connections—and why does it matter? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(4):652–657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Samulowitz A, Gremyr I, Eriksson E, Hensing G. “Brave men” and “emotional women”: a theory-guided literature review on gender bias in health care and gendered norms towards patients with chronic pain. Pain Res Manag. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6358624.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Durand M-J, Coutu M-F, Tremblay D, Sylvain C, Gouin M-M, Bilodeau K, et al. Insights into the sustainable return to work of aging workers with a work disability: an interpretative description study. J Occup Rehabil. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09894-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hunt MR. Strengths and challenges in the use of interpretive description: reflections arising from a study of the moral experience of health professionals in humanitarian work. Qual Health Res. 2009;19(9):1284–1292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Thorne S, Kirkham SR, O’Flynn-Magee K. The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qual Methods. 2004;3(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gallagher F, Corbière M, Larivière N. La recherche descriptive interprétative: description des besoins psychosociaux de femmes à la suite d’un résultat anormal à la mammographie de dépistage du cancer du sein (Interpretative descriptive research: a description of the psychosocial needs of women resulting from an abnormal breast cancer screening mammography). Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé (Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods in human, social, and health sciences). Quebec: Presses de l'Université du Québec; 2014. pp. 5–28.

  43. Kahlke RM. Generic qualitative approaches: pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. Int J Qual Methods. 2014;13(1):37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Thorne S. Interpretive description: qualitative research for applied practice. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(2):169–177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nachemson A. Back pain: delimiting the problem in the next millennium. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1999;22(5–6):473–490.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Loisel P, Durand M, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability prevention: new paradigm for the management of occupational back pain. Dis Manag Health Outcomes. 2001;9(7):351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Durand M-J, Nastasia I, Coutu MF, Bernier M. Practices of return-to-work coordinators working in large organizations. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(1):137–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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(4):507–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Carlsen B, Glenton C. What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Liehr PR, Taft Marcus M, Cameron C. Qualitative approaches to research. In: LoBiondo-Wood G, Haber J, Cameron C, Singh M, editors. Nursing research in Canada: methods, critical appraisal, and utilization. Toronto: Elsevier Canada; 2005. p. 165–191.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Neergaard MA, Olesen F, Andersen RS, Sondergaard J. Qualitative description—the poor cousin of health research? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bradley CJ, Neumark D, Luo Z, Schenk M. Employment and cancer: findings from a longitudinal study of breast and prostate cancer survivors. Cancer Invest. 2007;25(1):47–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Cooper AF, Hankins M, Rixon L, Eaton E, Grunfeld EA. Distinct work-related, clinical and psychological factors predict return to work following treatment in four different cancer types. Psychooncology. 2013;22(3):659–667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ervasti J, Kivimäki M, Dray-Spira R, Head J, Goldberg M, Pentti J, et al. Psychosocial factors associated with work disability in men and women with diabetes: a pooled analysis of three occupational cohort studies. Diabet Med. 2016;33(2):208–217.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gignac MAM, Lacaille D, Beaton DE, Backman CL, Cao X, Badley EM. Striking a balance: work-health-personal life conflict in women and men with arthritis and its association with work outcomes. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(3):573–584.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gudbergsson SB, Fosså SD, Dahl AA. Are there sex differences in the work ability of cancer survivors? Norwegian experiences from the NOCWO study. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(3):323–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lindbohm M-L, Taskila T, Kuosma E, Hietanen P, Carlsen K, Gudbergsson S, et al. Work ability of survivors of breast, prostate, and testicular cancer in Nordic countries: a NOCWO study. J Cancer Surviv. 2012;6(1):72–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Morrison TL, Thomas RL. Comparing men’s and women’s experiences of work after cancer: a photovoice study. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23(10):3015–3023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Roelen C, Koopmans PC, Schellart AJM, van der Beek AJ. Resuming work after cancer: a prospective study of occupational register data. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(3):431–440.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Taskila T, Lindbohm ML, Martikainen R, Lehto U-S, Hakanen J, Hietanen P. Cancer survivors’ received and needed social support from their work place and the occupational health services. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14(5):427–435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Taskila T, Martikainen R, Hietanen P, Lindbohm M-L. Comparative study of work ability between cancer survivors and their referents. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(5):914–920.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hubertsson J, Turkiewicz A, Petersson IF, Englund M. Understanding occupation, sick leave, and disability pension due to knee and hip osteoarthritis from a sex perspective. Arthritis Care Res. 2017;69(2):226–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Mäntyniemi A, Oksanen T, Salo P, Virtanen M, Sjösten N, Pentti J, et al. Job strain and the risk of disability pension due to musculoskeletal disorders, depression or coronary heart disease: a prospective cohort study of 69,842 employees. Occup Environ Med. 2012;69(8):574–581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Nordgren L, Söderlund A. Associations between socio-demographic factors, encounters with healthcare professionals and perceived ability to return to work in people sick-listed due to heart failure in Sweden: a cross-sectional study. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(2):168–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Roelen CAM, van Rhenen W, Groothoff JW, van der Klink JJL, Bültmann U. Prolonged fatigue is associated with sickness absence in men but not in women: prospective study with 1-year follow-up of white-collar employees. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;87(3):257–263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Saeki S. Disability management after stroke: its medical aspects for workplace accommodation. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(13–14):578–582.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tinghög P, Hillert J, Kjeldgård L, Wiberg M, Glaser A, Alexanderson K. High prevalence of sickness absence and disability pension among multiple sclerosis patients: a nationwide population-based study. Mult Scler. 2013;19(14):1923–1930.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Wallenius M, Skomsvoll JF, Koldingsnes W, Rødevand E, Mikkelsen K, Kaufmann C, et al. Comparison of work disability and health-related quality of life between males and females with rheumatoid arthritis below the age of 45 years. Scand J Rheumatol. 2009;38(3):178–183.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wallenius M, Skomsvoll JF, Koldingsnes W, Rødevand E, Mikkelsen K, Kaufmann C, et al. Work disability and health-related quality of life in males and females with psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(5):685–689.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Xiong C, Martin T, Sravanapudi A, Colantonio A, Mollayeva T. Factors associated with return to work in men and women with work-related traumatic brain injury. Disabil Health J. 2016;9(3):439–448.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Arvilommi P, Suominen K, Mantere O, Valtonen H, Leppämäki S, Isometsä E. Predictors of long-term work disability among patients with type I and II bipolar disorder: a prospective 18-month follow-up study. Bipolar Disord. 2015;17(8):821–835.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Batt-Rawden KB, Tellnes G. Social factors of sickness absences and ways of coping: a qualitative study of men and women with mental and musculoskeletal diagnoses. Norway Int J Ment Health Promot. 2012;14(2):83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Batt-Rawden K, Tellnes G. Social causes to sickness absence among men and women with mental illnesses. Psychology. 2012;03(04):315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. De Rijk A, Janssen N, Alexanderson K, Nijhuis F. Gender differences in return to work patterns among sickness absentees and their associations with health: a prospective cohort study in The Netherlands. Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31(4):327–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Nielsen MBD, Bültmann U, Amby M, Christensen U, Diderichsen F, Rugulies R. Return to work among employees with common mental disorders: study design and baseline findings from a mixed-method follow-up study. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(8):864–872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Nielsen MBD, Bültmann U, Madsen IEH, Martin M, Christensen U, Diderichsen F, et al. Health, work, and personal-related predictors of time to return to work among employees with mental health problems. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(15):1311–1316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Nielsen MBD, Madsen IEH, Bultmann U, Christensen U, Diderichsen F, Rugulies R. Encounters between workers sick-listed with common mental disorders and return-to-work stakeholders. Does workers’ gender matter? Scand J Public Health. 2013;41(2):191–197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Real E, Jover L, Verdaguer R, Griera A, Segalàs C, Alonso P, et al. Factors associated with long-term sickness absence due to mental disorders: a cohort study of 7112 patients during the Spanish economic crisis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1):0146382.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Dionne CE, Bourbonnais R, Frémont P, Rossignol M, Stock SR, Nouwen A, et al. Determinants of “return to work in good health” among workers with back pain who consult in primary care settings: a 2-year prospective study. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(5):641–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Kvam L, Eide AH, Vik K. Understanding experiences of participation among men and women with chronic musculoskeletal pain in vocational rehabilitation. Work. 2013;45(2):161–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Kvam L, Eide AH. Gender differences in the importance of participation associated with injured workers/persons perceived barriers to returning to work in the context of vocational rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(1):78–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kvam L, Vik K. Discourses of participation in work among men and women in vocational rehabilitation. J Occup Sci. 2015;22(3):345–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Lippel K. Compensation for musculoskeletal disorders in Quebec: systemic discrimination against women workers? Int J Health Serv. 2003;33(2):253–281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Marois E, Durand M-J. Does participation in interdisciplinary work rehabilitation programme influence return to work obstacles and predictive factors? Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(12):994–1007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Rijk AD, Nijhuis F, Alexanderson K. Gender differences in work modifications and changed job characteristics during the return-to-work process: a prospective cohort study. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(2):185–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Stålnacke B-M, Haukenes I, Lehti A, Wiklund AF, Wiklund M, Hammarström A. Is there a gender bias in recommendations for further rehabilitation in primary care of patients with chronic pain after an interdisciplinary team assessment? J Rehabil Med. 2015;47(4):365–371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Wijnhoven HAH, de Vet HCW, Picavet HSJ. Sex differences in consequences of musculoskeletal pain. Spine. 2007;32(12):1360–1367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Saastamoinen P, Leino-Arjas P, Rahkonen O, Lahelma E. Separate and combined associations of pain and emotional exhaustion with sickness absence. Pain. 2016;157(1):186–193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Östlund G, Cedersund E, Alexanderson K, Hensing G. “It was really nice to have someone”—Lay people with musculoskeletal disorders request supportive relationships in rehabilitation. Scand J Public Health. 2001;29(4):285–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Östlund G, Cedersund E, Hensing G, Alexanderson K. Domestic strain: a hindrance in rehabilitation? Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18(1):49–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Smith SJA, Keefe FJ, Caldwell DS, Romano J, Baucom D. Gender differences in patient-spouse interactions: a sequential analysis of behavioral interactions in patients having osteoarthritic knee pain. Pain. 2004;112(1–2):183–187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Alleaume C, Bendiane M-K, Bouhnik A-D, Rey D, Cortaredona S, Seror V, et al. Chronic neuropathic pain negatively associated with employment retention of cancer survivors: evidence from a national French survey. J Cancer Surviv. 2018;12(1):115–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Kallay E, Degi CL, Pintea S. Are male cancer patients more affected by losing their jobs than female patients? Gender as a moderator of the relationship between losing the job and well-being in a sample of Romanian cancer patients. J BUON. 2017;22(5):1345–1351.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Østby KA, Mykletun A, Nilsen W. Explaining the gender gap in sickness absence. Occup Med. 2018;68(5):320–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Opsahl J, Eriksen HR, Tveito TH. Do expectancies of return to work and job satisfaction predict actual return to work in workers with long lasting LBP? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Sendén MG, Renström EA. Gender bias in assessment of future work ability among pain patients–an experimental vignette study of medical students’ assessment. Scand J Pain. 2019;19(2):407–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Holman D. Chronic conditions as predictors of later life disability employment exit: a gendered analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2019;76(7):441–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Fischer MR, Persson EB, Stålnacke B-M, Schult M-L, Löfgren M. Return to work after interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation: one-and two-year follow-up study based on the Swedish quality registry for pain rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51(4):281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Braaten TJ, Zhang C, Presson AP, Breviu B, Clegg D, Walsh JA. Gender differences in psoriatic arthritis with fatigue, pain, function, and work disability. J Psoriasis Psoriatic Arthritis. 2019;4(4):192–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Berdal G, Sand-Svartrud AL, Bø I, Dager TN, Dingsør A, Eppeland SG, et al. Aiming for a healthier life: a qualitative content analysis of rehabilitation goals in patients with rheumatic diseases. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(7):765–778.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Berger I. Exploring the needs of cancer survivors when returning to or staying in the workforce. Toronto (Canada): University of Toronto; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Bury M. Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociol Health Illn. 1982;4(2):167–182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Werner A, Isaksen LW, Malterud K. ‘I am not the kind of woman who complains of everything’: illness stories on self and shame in women with chronic pain. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59(5):1035–1045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Werner A, Malterud K. It is hard work behaving as a credible patient: encounters between women with chronic pain and their doctors. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(8):1409–1419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Cooke LP. The politics of housework. In: Treas J, Drobnic S, editors. Dividing the domestic: men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2010. p. 59–78.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  109. Dex S. Can state policies produce equality in housework? In: Treas J, Drobnic S, editors. Dividing the domestic: men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2010. p. 79–104.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  110. Fuwa M, Cohen PN. Housework and social policy. Soc Sci Res. 2007;36(2):512–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Lachance-Grzela M, Bouchard G. Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles. 2010;63(11–12):767–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Sayer LC. Gender, time and inequality: trends in women’s and men’s paid work, unpaid work and free time. Soc Forces. 2005;84(1):285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Bianchi SM, Sayer LC, Milkie MA, Robinson JP. Housework: who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Soc Forces. 2012;91(1):55–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Bianchi SM, Milkie MA, Sayer LC, Robinson JP. Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Soc Forces. 2000;79(1):191–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. van der Lippe T. Women’s employment and housework. In: Treas J, Drobnic S, editors. Dividing the domestic: men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2010. p. 41–58.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  116. Sayer LC. Trends in housework. In: Treas J, Drobnic S, editors. Dividing the domestic: men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2010. p. 19–38.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  117. Organisation for Econonomic Co-operation and Development. Gender, institutions and development database (GID-DB) 2019 [Internet]. Paris: OECD. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=GIDDB2019. Accessed 14 Oct 2020

  118. Craig L, Mullan K. Parenthood, gender and work-family time in the United States, Australia, Italy, France, and Denmark. J Marriage Fam. 2010;72(5):1344–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Cotter D, Hermsen JM, Vanneman R. The end of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. AJS. 2011;117(1):259–289.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. England P. The gender revolution: uneven and stalled. Gend Soc. 2010;24(2):149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Guérin F, Laville A, Daniellou F, Durafourg J, Kerguelen A. Comprendre le travail pour le transformer. La pratique de l’ergonomie (Understanding work to transform it. The ergonomics practice). 2nd ed. Lyon: ANACT; 2006.

  122. Durand MJ, Vézina N, Richard MC. Concept of margin of manoeuvre in return to work. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ, editors. Handbook of return to work. Boston, MA: Springer; 2016. p. 53–65.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  123. Coutu MF, Baril R, Durand MJ, Côté D, Rouleau A, Cadieux G. Transforming the meaning of pain: an important step for the return to work. Work. 2010;35(2):209–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Matsuno E, Budge SL. Non-binary/genderqueer identities: a critical review of the literature. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2017;9(3):116–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was jointly funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) under the Healthy and Productive Work initiative (Grant No. 890-2016-3028). We are also grateful for the contribution of all health professionals, workers’ representatives, employers and insurers who participated in the focus groups. Additional thanks go to Michaël Bernier, who conducted the initial literature search. Lastly, we would like to thank all the social partners who participated in the study by sitting on the advisory committee of the MIST-CAPRIT team.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre d’action en Prévention et réadaptation des Incapacités au Travail (CAPRIT), Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Suite 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Chantal Sylvain & Marie-Andrée Paquette

  2. Centre de Recherche Charles-Le Moyne-Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean Sur Les Innovations en Santé (CR-CSIS), Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Suite 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand, Dominique Tremblay, Chantal Sylvain & Marie-Andrée Paquette

  3. School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Suite 200, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Marie-France Coutu, Marie-José Durand & Chantal Sylvain

  4. Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail (IRSST), 505 Boulevard De Maisonneuve West, Montreal, QC, H3A 3C2, Canada

    Daniel Coté & Iuliana Nastasia

  5. School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 150 Place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC, J4K 0A8, Canada

    Dominique Tremblay

  6. Department of Management and Human Resource Management, School of Management, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 Boulevard de l’Université, Sherbrooke, QC, J1K 2R1, Canada

    Marie-Michelle Gouin

  7. Faculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Station Centre-ville, PO Box 6128, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Karine Bilodeau

Authors
  1. Marie-France Coutu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-José Durand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Coté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dominique Tremblay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chantal Sylvain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marie-Michelle Gouin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Karine Bilodeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Iuliana Nastasia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marie-Andrée Paquette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-France Coutu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary information 1 (PDF 114 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coutu, MF., Durand, MJ., Coté, D. et al. How does Gender Influence Sustainable Return to Work Following Prolonged Work Disability? An Interpretive Description Study. J Occup Rehabil 31, 552–569 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09953-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09953-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation