You are viewing a javascript disabled version of the site. Please enable Javascript for this site to function properly.
Go to headerGo to navigationGo to searchGo to contentsGo to footer
In content section. Select this link to jump to navigation

What leads to the expectation to return to work? Insights from a Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model of future work outcomes

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Dunstan, Debra A. | Covic, Tanya | Tyson, Graham A.

Affiliations: Discipline of Psychology, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, Australia | School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia | School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia

Note: [] Address for correspondence: Debra A. Dunstan, Discipline of Psychology, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale 2351, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 6773 3764; Fax: +61 2 6773 3820; E-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Work disability, modified work, co-worker support

DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-1481

Journal: Work, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 25-37, 2013

Received 8 November 2011
|
Accepted 7 August 2012
|
Published: 2013
Get PDF open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study used a Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model to identify the factors influencing the future work expectations and outcomes of employees with a musculoskeletal injury.

PARTICIPANTS: Australians with a compensable work injury (N=174), mean age=43.7 years, 53.2% male, 48.3% back injury , and 34.2% unskilled.

METHODS: A TPB model of the target behavior 'working, or continuing to work … three months from now' was constructed. A questionnaire measuring the model's components was completed at baseline and three-months follow-up.

RESULTS: The model met standard psychometric requirements. Attitude, Subjective Norm and Perceived Behavioral Control explained 76% of the variance in Behavioral Intention ([TeX:] R^{2}= 0.76, p< 0.001). Behavioral Intention (the expectation to return to work) explained 51% of the variance in work participation at follow-up (Nagelkerke [TeX:] R^{2}=0.51, p< 0.001; sensitivity=86.4%, specificity=71.2%). The strength of key influences on expectations varied according to employment status, but included the availability of modified duties, social aspects of work, the opinion of the treating doctor, co-worker support, pain, and functional limitations.

CONCLUSION: The TPG is a useful model and conceptual framework for integrating the biopsychosocial determinants of return to work (RTW) and identifying the influences on future work expectations and outcomes.

Show more