Return to work and analysis of Law 776 of 2002 in light of the ecological model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18041/2322-634X/rcso.1.2021.7094Keywords:
return to work, occupation, work, work restrictions, law, occupational risk , ecological-systemic modelAbstract
Introduction: The human being is integral that interacts in different subsystems with a view to achieving personal development; Faced with a health condition, their role as a worker and labor participation can be impacted, requiring a process of return to work covered by Law 776 of 2002.
Objective: Analyze the content of Law 776, which establishes rules on the organization, administration and benefits of the General System of Occupational Risks related to the return to work in the light of the ecological-systemic model.
Methods: qualitative study with content analysis technique, the categories and subcategories were established considering topics, subtopics, events and the enumeration rules according to frequency, presence and cooccurrence under the eyes of the ecological-systemic theoretical model. The primary source was Law 776 of 2002.
Results: the center of the system is the Occupational Risk Manager, the worker is identified as an entity with economic rights based on their medical restrictions and their health is valued according to their ability to work ; the family is referred to by beneficiaries and the company as a physical space that can affect health. Each of the subsystems of the ecological-systemic model arises from an economic compensation model.
Conclusion: In the light of the ecological-systemic model, an ecological transition that arises from the microsystem is evidenced by putting as the center not the worker but the occupational risk manager, this generates that everything that is done regarding the return to work is limited to actions of economic benefits ignoring the development of the human being and its interaction with the surroundings.
Downloads
References
Higuera AM. Aproximaciones sobre el derecho al trabajo desde la perspectiva de los derechos humanos. Estud Socio-Jurídico; 2007; 9:166–89.
Ministerio de la Protección Social, Dirección General de Riesgos Profesionales. Manual Guía sobre Procedimientos para la Rehabilitación y Reincorporación Ocupacional de los Trabajadores en el Sistema General de Riesgos Profesionales; 2004. Available from: https://fondoriesgoslaborales.gov.co/documents/publicaciones/manuales/Manual-procedimientos-rehabilitacion.pdf
Congreso de Colombia. Ley 776 por la cual se dictan normas sobre la organización, administracióny prestaciones del Sistema General de Riesgos Profesionales. Diario Oficial No. 45.037. Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional de Colombia; 2002.
Ministerio de la Protección Social, Dirección General de Riesgos Profesionales. Instrumentación del manual guía de procedimientos de rehabilitación y reincorporación ocupacional de los trabajadores en el sistema general de riesgos profesionales. Ministerio de la Protección Social. Available from: http://acripbolivar.org/descargas/paginas.pdf
FASECOLDA. Riesgos laborales: Estadísticas del ramo; 2020. Citado: 2019 Mar 20. Available from: http://www.fasecolda.com/index.php/ramos/riesgos-laborales/estadisticas-del-ramo/
Cuervo-Díaz DE, Moreno-Angarita M. Prevención y manejo de la discapacidad para trabajar: un campo de estudios necesario para abordar los retos del sistema colombiano de riesgos laborales. Rev Salud Pública. 2017;19(4):567–73.
Carvajal OJG, Davila LCA. Mobbing o acoso laboral. Revisión del tema en Colombia . Cuadernos Admin. 2013; 29(49): 95–106.
Doki S, Harano S, Shinada K, Ohyama A, Kojimahara N. Return-to-work support programs for workers on sick leave: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2018; 60(6): 169-179. doi: 10.1539/sangyoeisei.2018-008-A.
Senthanar S, MacEachen E, Lippel K. Return to Work and Ripple Effects on Family of Precariously Employed Injured Workers. J Occup Rehabil. 2020; 30(1): 72–83.
Trillos Ch MC, Tolosa G IA, Escobar F RY. Modelos de rehabilitación para la intervención del desorden músculo-esquelético en trabajadores. Rev Univ Ind Santander Salud. 2016; 48(4): 536–47.
Simonelli AP, Camarotto JA, Bravo ES, Vilela RA de G. Proposta de articulação entre abordagens metodo lógicas para melhoria do processo de reabilitação profissional. Rev Bras Saúde Ocup. 2010;35(121):64–73.
Knauf MT, Schultz IZ. Current conceptual models of return to work. In: Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ. Handbook of Return to Work. New York: Springer; 2016. p. 27–51.
Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977; 196(4286): 129–36.
Engel GL. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry. 1980;137(5): 535–44.
Schultz IZ, Gatchel RJ. Handbook of Return to Work. New York: Springer; 2016
Bronfenbrenner U. La ecología del desarrollo humano. Paidos: España; 1979.
Strunin L, Boden LI. Family consequences of chronic back pain. Soc Sci Med. 2004; 58(7): 1385–93.
Streiblelt M, Blume C, Thren K, Reneman M, Mueler-Fahrnow W. Value of functional capacity evaluation information in a clinical setting for predicting return to work. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(3):429–34.
Baril R, Clarke J, Friesen M, Stock S, Cole D, Bombardier C, et al. Management of return-to-work programs for workers with musculoskeletal disorders: A qualitative study in three Canadian provinces. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(11):2101–14.
Ask T, Magnussen LH. Supervisors’ strategies to facilitate work functioning among employees with musculoskeletal complaints: a focus group study. ScientificWorld J. 2015;2015:865628.
Einarsen S, Hauge LJ. Antecedentes y consecuencias del acoso psicológico en el trabajo: una revisión de la literatura. Rev Psicol del Trab Organ. 2006; 22(3): 251–73.
de Jong M, de Boer AGEM, Tamminga SJ, Frings-Dresen MHW. Quality of Working Life Issues of Employees with a Chronic Physical Disease: A Systematic Review. J Occup Rehab. 2015; 25: 182-196.
Saunders SL, Nedelec B. What work means to people with work disability: A scoping review. J Occup Rehab. 2014; 24(1):100–10.
Wells M, Williams B, Firnigl D, Lang H, Coyle J, Kroll T, et al. Supporting “work-related goals” rather than “return to work” after cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of 25 qualitative studies.. Psychooncology; 2013; 22(6):1208-19. doi: 10.1002/pon.3148
De Jong M, Tmminga S, Es R, Frings-Dresen M, Boer A. The quality of working life questionnaire for cancer survivors (QWLQ-CS): factorial structure, internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):66.
Collodel-Benetti I, Vieira ML, Crepaldi MA, Ribeiro-Schneider D. Fundamentos de la teoría bioecológica de Urie Bronfenbrenner. Pensando Psicol. 2013;9(16):89.
Linares ET, Santín Vilariño C, Villas A, Menéndez Álvarez-Dardet S, López López MJ. El modelo ecológico de Bronfrenbrenner como marco teórico de la Psicooncología. An Psicol. 2002;18(1):45–59.
Bardin L. Análisis de contenido. Ediciones A: España; 2002.
Noguero FL. El análisis de contenido como método de investigación. Rev Educ. 2002;4:167–79.
Congreso de la República de Colombia. Ley 100 Por la cual se crea el sistema de seguridad social integral y se dictan otras disposiciones. Diario Oficial 41.148. Congreso de la República de Colombia; 1993.
Ministerio de Trabajo y seguridad de Colombia. Decreto 1295 Por el cual se determina la organización y administración del Sistema General de Riesgos Profesionales. Diario Oficial 51544. Ministerio de Trabajo y seguridad de Colombia; 1994. Available from: http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/decreto_1295_1994.html
Bromfenbrennner U. Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press; 1979.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2021-06-30 (6)
- 2022-05-25 (5)
- 2021-06-15 (4)
- 2021-03-04 (3)
- 2021-03-04 (2)
- 2021-03-04 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Colombiana de Salud Ocupacional
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
