Qualitative Examination of the Experience of Perceived Injustice Following Disabling Occupational Injury.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-23 DOI:10.1007/s10926-023-10154-y
Heather Adams, Judy E MacDonald, Ana Nightingale Castillo, Antonina Pavilanis, Manon Truchon, Marie Achille, Pierre Côté, Michael J L Sullivan
{"title":"Qualitative Examination of the Experience of Perceived Injustice Following Disabling Occupational Injury.","authors":"Heather Adams, Judy E MacDonald, Ana Nightingale Castillo, Antonina Pavilanis, Manon Truchon, Marie Achille, Pierre Côté, Michael J L Sullivan","doi":"10.1007/s10926-023-10154-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to explore individuals' perspectives on the factors, situations or events that contributed to their perceptions of injustice following occupational injury.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study sample consisted of 30 participants (18 women, 12 men) who had submitted a time-loss claim for a work-related musculoskeletal injury. Participants with elevated scores on a measure of perceived injustice were interviewed about the factors that contributed to their sense of injustice. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify the broad classes of situations or events that participants experienced as unjust in the weeks following occupational injury.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three dominant themes emerged from the interviews: (1) Invalidation, (2) Undeserved suffering and (3) Blame. Inductively derived subthemes reflected specific dimensions of post-injury experiences that contributed to participants' sense of injustice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given that suffering and invalidating communication are potentially modifiable factors, there are grounds for optimism that intervention approaches can be developed to prevent or reduce perceptions of injustice in the aftermath of debilitating injury. The development of intervention approaches that are effective in preventing or reducing perceptions of injustice holds promise of contributing to more positive recovery outcomes in individuals who have sustained debilitating work injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"657-668"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-023-10154-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to explore individuals' perspectives on the factors, situations or events that contributed to their perceptions of injustice following occupational injury.

Materials and methods: The study sample consisted of 30 participants (18 women, 12 men) who had submitted a time-loss claim for a work-related musculoskeletal injury. Participants with elevated scores on a measure of perceived injustice were interviewed about the factors that contributed to their sense of injustice. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify the broad classes of situations or events that participants experienced as unjust in the weeks following occupational injury.

Results: Three dominant themes emerged from the interviews: (1) Invalidation, (2) Undeserved suffering and (3) Blame. Inductively derived subthemes reflected specific dimensions of post-injury experiences that contributed to participants' sense of injustice.

Conclusions: Given that suffering and invalidating communication are potentially modifiable factors, there are grounds for optimism that intervention approaches can be developed to prevent or reduce perceptions of injustice in the aftermath of debilitating injury. The development of intervention approaches that are effective in preventing or reducing perceptions of injustice holds promise of contributing to more positive recovery outcomes in individuals who have sustained debilitating work injuries.

致残职业伤害后感知不公正体验的定性检验。
目的:本研究的主要目的是探讨个人对职业伤害后不公正的感知的因素、情况或事件的看法。材料和方法:研究样本包括30名参与者(18名女性,12名男性),他们提交了与工作有关的肌肉骨骼损伤的时间损失索赔。在感知不公正方面得分较高的参与者接受了关于导致他们感到不公正的因素的采访。进行了专题分析,以确定参与者在职业伤害后几周内经历的不公正的情况或事件的大类。结果:访谈中出现了三个主要主题:(1)无效,(2)不应得的痛苦和(3)责备。归纳衍生的子主题反映了导致参与者不公平感的受伤后经历的特定维度。结论:考虑到痛苦和无效的沟通是潜在的可改变因素,我们有理由乐观地认为,干预方法可以被开发出来,以防止或减少在使人衰弱的伤害之后对不公正的看法。有效预防或减少对不公正的看法的干预方法的发展有望为遭受工伤的个人带来更积极的恢复结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law.  A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信