An emerging trend in work practice is to move knowledge into the hands and minds of the end-users—our clients.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate clients’ perspectives on their experiences, needs, and preferences for accessing and using information to make decisions in resuming work and living with disability.
Methods
Data from a grounded theory study with a sample of 14 participants with chronic disabilities from three regions across Canada were analyzed using the constant comparative method.
Findings
Barriers revealed the pervasive struggles of clients in accessing and communicating information. Clients need places, resource people as well as access to diverse formats, and material to support knowledge use. Clients engaged themselves in interpreting or acting upon knowledge through planning for contingencies, appraising the self in context, and reflecting and learning from others.
Implications
Findings advance the conceptual understanding of knowledge translation principles and processes needed to support clients in making decisions about return-to-work. Opportunities for policy change and for occupational therapists to support knowledge brokering and translation are elaborated.
BarilR., ClarkeJ., FriesenM., StockS., ColeD., & the Work-Ready group. (2003). Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: A qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 2101–2114.
2.
BennettS., & BennettJ. (2000). The process of evidence-based practice in occupational therapy: Informing clinical decisions. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 47, 171–180.
3.
BrunarskiD., ShawL., & DoupeL. (2008). Moving toward virtual interdisciplinary teams and a multi-stakeholder approach in community-based return to work care. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 30, 329–336.
4.
Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. (2002). Enabling occupation: An occupational therapy perspective (Rev. ed.). Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE.
5.
Canadian Institute of Health Research. (2004). The CIHR knowledge translation strategy 2004-2009: Innovation to action.Canada: Author.
FreireP. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed.New York: Seabury Press.
12.
FriesenM. N., YassiA., & CooperJ. (2001). Return-to-work: The importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work, 17, 11–22.
13.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago: Aldine.
14.
HoffmanT., & WorrallL. (2004). Designing effective written health education materials: Considerations for health professionals. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 1166–1173.
15.
JacobsonN., ButterillD., & GoeringP. (2003). Development of a framework for knowledge translation: Understanding user context. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8, 94–99.
16.
JanssonI., & BjorklundA. (2007). The experience of returning to work. Work, 28, 121–134.
17.
KorzyckiM., KorzyckiM., & ShawL. (2008). Left behind in the return-to-work journey: Consumer insights for policy change and practice strategies. Work, 30, 277–287.
18.
LavisJ. N., RobertsonD., WoodsideJ. M., McLeodC. B., AblesonJ., & the Knowledge Translation Study Group. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?The Millbank Quarterly, 81, 221–248.
19.
MacEachenE., KosnyA., & FerrierS. (2007). Unexpected barriers in return to work: Lessons learned from injured worker peer support groups. Work, 29, 155–164.
20.
McEneanyJ., McKennaK., & SummervilleP. (2002). Australian occupational therapists working in adult physical dysfunction settings: What treatment media do they use?Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 49, 115–127.
21.
MorrowS. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250–260.
22.
Roberts-YatesC. (2003). The concerns and issues of injured workers in relation to claims/injury management and rehabilitation: The need for new operational framework. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 898–907.
23.
SharryR., McKennaK., & ToothL. (2002). Occupational therapists’ use and perceptions of written client education materials. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 573–576.
24.
ShawL., MacKinnonJ., McWilliamC., & SumsionT. (2004). Consumer participation in the employment rehabilitation process: Contextual factors and implications for practice. Work, 23, 181–192.
25.
ShawL., McDermidJ., KothariA., LindsayR., BrakeP., PageP. (in press). Knowledge brokering with injured workers: Perspectives of injured worker groups and health care professionals. Work.
26.
SoderbergS., JumiskoE., & GardG. (2004). Client's experiences of a work rehabilitation process. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 419–424.
27.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
SumsionT. (2005). Facilitating client-centred practice: Insights from clients. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 13–20.
29.
WilkinsS., PollockN., RochonS., & LawM. (2001). Implementing client-centred practice: Why is it so difficult to do?Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 70–79.
