Barriers and facilitators to work reintegration and burn survivors' perspectives on educating work colleagues. Issue 7 (November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nguyen, Ngoc Tram; Lorrain, Mélyssa; Pognon-Hanna, Joe Nayima; Elfassy, Caroline; Calva, Valerie; de Oliveira, Ana; Nedelec, Bernadette
• Is Part Of: Burns. Volume 42:Issue 7(2016)
• Page Start: 1477
• Page End: 1486
• Publication Date: 2016-11
• Subjects: Burn -- Return to work -- Work reintegration -- Co-workers -- Education -- Occupational therapy; OT occupational therapy -- RTW return to work; Burns and scalds -- Periodicals; 617.11
• DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2016.05.014
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0305-4179

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Work reintegration constitutes a major milestone in the rehabilitation process of adults who have sustained a burn. Research studies with other conditions demonstrated that open, explicit communication about the worker's condition and potential limitations may facilitate this transition. However, the best approach to enable this discussion to occur has yet to be described. The aim of this exploratory qualitative study was to investigate burn survivors' and clinicians' perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to work reintegration that could be addressed through education of work colleagues, which information to communicate to the workplace and the most effective method to disseminate this knowledge. Methods: Five semi-structured focus groups were conducted with three groups of informants including: (1) 13 burn survivors who had already returned to work; (2) 7 who were planning on returning; and (3) 9 burn care professionals. Qualitative data were inductively analyzed employing constant comparative techniques. Results: Key barriers and facilitators that were identified included residual impairments, individual characteristics, support from the social environment, work accommodations and resources from the healthcare and compensation systems. Burn survivors agreed that return to work efforts were not adequately supported and that education should be provided to work colleagues about the burn and rehabilitation process, but that information on residual impairments should be communicated judiciously as it may be used prejudiciously against those seeking new employment. In the latter case, it is preferable to inform the workplace of their strengths and abilities. Conclusions: Extensive literature demonstrating the benefits of educational programs for the peers and teachers of pediatric burn survivors when they return to school already exists. This study provides evidence that there is a need for a similar process for adult burn survivors returning to work. The educational material must be versatile enough so that it can be customized to individual burn survivor's needs and the environments in which they work.