This scoping review identified what kinds of work disability policy issues are critiqued in articles published in countries with cause-based versus comprehensive welfare systems. Drawing on a review of work disability policy research, we identified 74 English-language, peer-reviewed articles that focused on program adequacy and design. Articles on cause-based systems dwelled on system fairness and policies of proof of entitlement, while those on comprehensive systems focused more on system design complexities relating to worker inclusion and scope of medical certificates. Overall, we observed a clear difference in the nature of problems examined in the different systems. Gaps in work disability policy literature are identified, and challenges for comparative policy research are discussed.
WhiteheadMClaytonSHollandPet al. Helping Chronically Ill or Disabled People Into Work: What Can We Learn From International Comparative Analyses?
Liverpool, England:
Public Health Research Consortium; 2008.
2.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers. A Synthesis of Findings Across OECD Countries.
Paris, France:
OECD Publishing; 2010.
3.
WaddellGBurtonAKAylwardM. A biopsychosocial model of sickness and disability. In The Guides Newsletter. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2008.
4.
MacEachenEFerrierSKosnyAChambersL.A deliberation on “hurt versus harm” logic in early return to work policy.Policy and Practice in Health and Safety. 2007;
5(2):41–62.
5.
LoiselPCoteP.The work disability paradigm and its public health implications. In: LoiselPAnemaHFeuersteinMPranskyGMacEachenEKosta-BlackC, eds. Handbook of Work Disability: Prevention and Management.
Berlin, Germany:
Springer; 2013.
6.
MacEachenEDuBBartelEet al.Scoping review of work disability policies and programs. Int J Work Disabil Manag. 2017;
12:e1.
7.
LippelKLottersF.Public insurance systems: a comparison of cause-based and disability-based income support systems. In: LoiselPAnemaH, eds. Handbook of Work Disability: Prevention and Management.
New York, NY:
Springer; 2013:183–202.
8.
OrZCasesCLisacMVrangbækKWinbladUBevanG.Are health problems systemic? Politics of access and choice under Beveridge and Bismarck systems.Health Econ Policy Law. 2010;
5(3):269–293.
9.
BonoliG.Classifying welfare states: a two-dimension approach.J Soc Policy. 1997;
26(3):351–372.
10.
ArkseyHO’MalleyL.Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;
8(1):19–32.
11.
Dixon-WoodsMAgarwalSJonesDYoungBSuttonA.Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods.J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;
10(1):45–53.
12.
ButlerRJWorrallJD.Claims reporting and risk bearing moral hazard in workers’ compensation.J Risk Insurance. 1991;
58(2):191–204.
13.
TangDChenGXuYWHui-LoKYLuoXYChanCC.An emerging occupational rehabilitation system in the People’s Republic of China.J Occup Rehabil. 2011;
21(Suppl. 1):535–543.
14.
ShanD.An overview of work disability policies in China. In: EMacEachen, ed. The Science and Politics of Work Disability Prevention.
New York, NY:
Routledge; 2018.
15.
MansfieldLMacEachenETompaEKalcevichCEndicottMYeungN.A critical review of literature on experience rating in workers’ compensation systems.Policy Pract Health Saf. 2012;
10(1):3–25.
16.
LaDouJ.Workers’ compensation in the United States: cost shifting and inequities in a dysfunctional system.New Solutions. 2010;
20(3):291–302.
17.
MacEachenELippelKSaundersRet al.
Workers’ compensation experience-rating rules and the danger to workers’ safety in the temporary work agency sector.Policy Pract Health Saf. 2012;
10(1):77–95.
18.
OorschotWV.Miracle or nightmare? A critical review of Dutch activation policies and their outcomes. J Soc Policy. 2002;
31(3):399–420.
19.
StåhlCToomingasAÅborgCEkbergKKjellbergK.Promoting occupational health interventions in early return to work by implementing financial subsidies: a Swedish case study. BMC Public Health. 2013;
13:310.
20.
JohnstonVBealesD.Enhancing direct access and authority for work capacity certificates to physiotherapists.J Man Ther. 2016;
25:100–103.
21.
LewchukW.The limits of voice: are workers afraid to express their health and safety rights?Osgoode Hall Law J. 2013;
50:789–812.
22.
ManapragadaABruk-LeeV.Staying silent about safety issues: conceptualizing and measuring safety silence motives.Accid Anal Prev. 2016;
91:144–156.
23.
KilgourEKosnyAMcKenzieDCollieA.Interactions between injured workers and insurers in workers’ compensation systems: a systematic review of qualitative research literature.J Occup Rehabil. 2014;
25(1):160–181.
24.
LarssonA.Sick of being unemployed? Interactions between unemployment and sickness insurance.Scand J Econ. 2006;
108(1):97–113.
25.
SamuelsSS.Why are the workers’ compensation systems dysfunctional? From scientists we ought also to expect science!New Solutions. 2010;
20(3):311–315.
26.
GrantGStuddertDM.Poisoned chalice? A critical analysis of the evidence linking personal injury compensation processes with adverse health outcomes. Melbourne Univ Law Rev. 2009;
33(3):866–885.
27.
ClayFJBerecki-GisolfJCollieA.How well do we report on compensation systems in studies of return to work: a systematic reviewJ Occup Rehabil. 2014;
24(1):111–124.
28.
LippelKEakinJMHolnessDLHowseD.The structure and process of workers’ compensation systems and the role of doctors: a comparison of Ontario and Quebec. Am J Ind Med. 2016;
59:1070–1086.
29.
BesleyTCaseA.Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies.Econ J. 2000;
110(467):672–694.
