利用对话解决在获得重返工作资源方面的司法不平等问题,并确定弱势工人的政策弱点。

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Anya Keefe, Barbara Neis, Kim Cullen, Desai Shan
{"title":"利用对话解决在获得重返工作资源方面的司法不平等问题,并确定弱势工人的政策弱点。","authors":"Anya Keefe, Barbara Neis, Kim Cullen, Desai Shan","doi":"10.1177/10482911251319005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In Canada, occupational health and safety (OHS) and workers' compensation are primarily provincial responsibilities and there is no national institute for OHS research. Research capacity and many civil society resources to which injured workers can turn for support are primarily concentrated in three provinces. Labor force composition, employment options, vulnerability to injury, and return to work (RTW) challenges vary across jurisdictions and are changing over time, but not at the same rate. When coupled with jurisdictional inequities in RTW research and civil society supports, these differences have the potential to contribute to policy gaps and situations where issues addressed in one jurisdiction emerge again in another. This article reports on a multi-stakeholder, virtual dialogue process designed to help identify and address these potential inequities by transferring research insights related to RTW for workers in situations of vulnerability (e.g., precarious employment) and findings from a comparative policy scan to Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), a province with very limited RTW research capacity and civil society supports for injured workers. We describe the context, the dialogue process, key results from the policy scan, and we reflect on the opportunities and constraints of these knowledge synthesis and exchange tools as vehicles to address jurisdictional disparities in RTW research, policy and supports for workers injured in precarious employment and other vulnerable situations in a context of economic and policy change.</p>","PeriodicalId":45586,"journal":{"name":"New Solutions-A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":"81-95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11954360/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Dialogue to Address Jurisdictional Inequities in Access to Return to Work Resources and Identify Policy Weaknesses for Workers in Situations of Vulnerability.\",\"authors\":\"Anya Keefe, Barbara Neis, Kim Cullen, Desai Shan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10482911251319005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In Canada, occupational health and safety (OHS) and workers' compensation are primarily provincial responsibilities and there is no national institute for OHS research. Research capacity and many civil society resources to which injured workers can turn for support are primarily concentrated in three provinces. Labor force composition, employment options, vulnerability to injury, and return to work (RTW) challenges vary across jurisdictions and are changing over time, but not at the same rate. When coupled with jurisdictional inequities in RTW research and civil society supports, these differences have the potential to contribute to policy gaps and situations where issues addressed in one jurisdiction emerge again in another. This article reports on a multi-stakeholder, virtual dialogue process designed to help identify and address these potential inequities by transferring research insights related to RTW for workers in situations of vulnerability (e.g., precarious employment) and findings from a comparative policy scan to Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), a province with very limited RTW research capacity and civil society supports for injured workers. We describe the context, the dialogue process, key results from the policy scan, and we reflect on the opportunities and constraints of these knowledge synthesis and exchange tools as vehicles to address jurisdictional disparities in RTW research, policy and supports for workers injured in precarious employment and other vulnerable situations in a context of economic and policy change.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Solutions-A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"81-95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11954360/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Solutions-A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10482911251319005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Solutions-A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10482911251319005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在加拿大,职业健康与安全(OHS)和工人赔偿主要是各省的责任,没有国家职业健康与安全研究所。受伤工人可以求助的研究能力和许多民间社会资源主要集中在三个省。劳动力构成、就业选择、受伤脆弱性和重返工作岗位(RTW)挑战因司法管辖区而异,并且随着时间的推移而变化,但速度不同。再加上RTW研究和民间社会支持方面的司法不平等,这些差异有可能造成政策差距和在一个司法管辖区解决的问题在另一个司法管辖区再次出现的情况。本文报道了一个多方利益相关者的虚拟对话过程,旨在通过将与弱势情况下(例如,不稳定的就业)工人的RTW相关的研究见解和比较政策扫描的结果转移到纽芬兰和拉布拉多(NL),从而帮助识别和解决这些潜在的不平等现象。纽芬兰和拉布拉多(NL)是一个RTW研究能力非常有限的省份,民间社会对受伤工人的支持非常有限。我们描述了背景、对话过程、政策扫描的主要结果,并反思了这些知识综合和交流工具的机遇和制约因素,这些工具可以作为解决RTW研究、不稳定就业中受伤工人和其他弱势群体在经济和政策变化背景下的政策和支持方面的司法差异的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using Dialogue to Address Jurisdictional Inequities in Access to Return to Work Resources and Identify Policy Weaknesses for Workers in Situations of Vulnerability.

In Canada, occupational health and safety (OHS) and workers' compensation are primarily provincial responsibilities and there is no national institute for OHS research. Research capacity and many civil society resources to which injured workers can turn for support are primarily concentrated in three provinces. Labor force composition, employment options, vulnerability to injury, and return to work (RTW) challenges vary across jurisdictions and are changing over time, but not at the same rate. When coupled with jurisdictional inequities in RTW research and civil society supports, these differences have the potential to contribute to policy gaps and situations where issues addressed in one jurisdiction emerge again in another. This article reports on a multi-stakeholder, virtual dialogue process designed to help identify and address these potential inequities by transferring research insights related to RTW for workers in situations of vulnerability (e.g., precarious employment) and findings from a comparative policy scan to Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), a province with very limited RTW research capacity and civil society supports for injured workers. We describe the context, the dialogue process, key results from the policy scan, and we reflect on the opportunities and constraints of these knowledge synthesis and exchange tools as vehicles to address jurisdictional disparities in RTW research, policy and supports for workers injured in precarious employment and other vulnerable situations in a context of economic and policy change.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: New Solutions delivers authoritative responses to perplexing problems, with a worker’s voice, an activist’s commitment, a scientist’s approach, and a policy-maker’s experience. New Solutions explores the growing, changing common ground at the intersection of health, work, and the environment. The Journal makes plain how the issues in each area are interrelated and sets forth progressive, thoughtfully crafted public policy choices. It seeks a conversation on the issues between the grassroots labor and environmental activists and the professionals and researchers involved in charting society’s way forward with the understanding that lack of scientific knowledge is no excuse for doing nothing and that inaction is itself a choice.
×
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