Presentation W P26

W P26 (Poster Presentation):
Integrated prevention in the workplace: Developing a concept to better develop practices

Presented by: Bénédicte Calvet

Download PDF

Authors

Calvet B1, Vézina N1, Nastasia I2, Laberge M3, Rubiano P1, Sultan-Taïeb H1, Toulouse G2, Durand MJ4

  1. Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal
  2. Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Montréal
  3. Université de Montréal, Montréal
  4. Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Canada

Abstract

Background

There are several intervention approaches within work disability prevention; such as primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Some are more focused on rectifying the workplace itself while others center on the patient. Some authors (Yassi et al, 2003; Frank et al, 2006) have proposed “integrated prevention” to reduce the burden of disability in the workplace. The objectives of this study are to better understand the concept known as “integrated prevention”, as well as the stakeholders’ perspectives, and to identify barriers and opportunities for workplace implementation.

Methods

Literature review, concept analysis and 15 in-depth interviews with stakeholders from diverse work disability system paradigms were conducted. Stakeholders included occupational therapists, ergonomists, occupational health and safety managers, CSST compensation and rehabilitation staff, workers in the “return-to-work” process and associations mandated to help injured workers. Results aim at the development of a model for “integrated prevention” intervention and to then test it in an actual workplace environment.

Results

Results from the literature review, the concept analysis and the interviews will be presented. Preliminary results show variability in the understanding of integrated prevention. This concept is not really established in practice, as stakeholders are involved in primary, secondary OR tertiary prevention, and rarely both at once. Nevertheless, some participants noted that RTW interventions often generate a need for primary or secondary prevention. An ergonomist may occasionally introduce certain integrated practices after several interventions at the same company, whether RTW cases or other. The suggestion to consider primary and secondary prevention while operating at the tertiary level is potentially worthwhile but may or may not be adopted by stakeholders for various reasons.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that it may be worth considering an ecosystemic vision of WDP prevention. The "Silo" approach to prevention management and RTW does not facilitate the development of integrated prevention in workplaces. However, some gateways could be used to bridge the gaps between primary prevention and return to work. Testing the model in an actual workplace will bring new elements to effective practices.

Schedule Details

Wednesday October 1
13:00 - 14:00 Poster Viewing
Session: Varia