Katherine Lippel1, Joan M Eakin2, D Linn Holness3,4, Dana Howse2. 1. Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Dalla Lana School of Public Health and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Centre for Research in Inner City Health and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study sought to identify impacts of compensation system characteristics on doctors in Québec and Ontario. METHODS: (i) Legal analysis; (ii) Qualitative methods applied to documentation and individual and group interviews with doctors (34) and other system participants (31); and (iii) Inter-jurisdictional transdisciplinary analysis involving cross-disciplinary comparative and integrative analysis of policy contexts, qualitative data, and the relationship between the two. RESULTS: In both jurisdictions the compensation board controlled decisions on work-relatedness and doctors perceived the bureaucratic process negatively. Gatekeeping roles differed between jurisdictions both in initial adjudication and in dispute processes. Québec legislation gives greater weight to the opinion of the treating physician. These differences affected doctors' experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Policy-makers should contextualize the sources of the "evidence" they rely on from intervention research because findings may reflect a system rather than an intervention effect. Researchers should consider policy contexts to both adequately design a study and interpret their results. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:1070-1086, 2016.
BACKGROUND: This study sought to identify impacts of compensation system characteristics on doctors in Québec and Ontario. METHODS: (i) Legal analysis; (ii) Qualitative methods applied to documentation and individual and group interviews with doctors (34) and other system participants (31); and (iii) Inter-jurisdictional transdisciplinary analysis involving cross-disciplinary comparative and integrative analysis of policy contexts, qualitative data, and the relationship between the two. RESULTS: In both jurisdictions the compensation board controlled decisions on work-relatedness and doctors perceived the bureaucratic process negatively. Gatekeeping roles differed between jurisdictions both in initial adjudication and in dispute processes. Québec legislation gives greater weight to the opinion of the treating physician. These differences affected doctors' experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Policy-makers should contextualize the sources of the "evidence" they rely on from intervention research because findings may reflect a system rather than an intervention effect. Researchers should consider policy contexts to both adequately design a study and interpret their results. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:1070-1086, 2016.
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; Shireen Harbin; Fabricio F Vieira; Emma Irvin; Colette N Severin; Behdin Nowrouzi-Kia; Margaret Tiong; Anil Adisesh Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2022-05-05
Authors: Robert A Macpherson; Mieke Koehoorn; Jonathan Fan; William Quirke; Benjamin C Amick; Allen Kraut; Cameron A Mustard; Christopher B McLeod Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2019-09