The constituents of trust in the context of a return to work following a work disability: A scoping review protocol

The constituents of trust in the context of a return to work following a work disability: A scoping review protocol | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The constituents of trust in the context of a return to work following a work disability: A scoping review protocol Hermann Brice Tegninko Tamokoue, Marie-Michelle Gouin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2146691/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Long-term work disability due to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSK) or a common mental disorder (CMD) is a serious issue that affects the whole of society. Facilitating relationships between the multiple stakeholders involved in someone’s return to work (RTW) has emerged as a key avenue for a successful RTW and must include building trust between stakeholders. Although the constituents of trust have been identified in previous social science and business studies, no review has yet documented which have been explored in the context of RTW. Methods: We will conduct a scoping review using Peters and coll.’s methodology and the PRISMA-P methodology to identify the constituents of trust that have been explored in the context of RTW following a work disability due to a MSK or a CMD. Full-text studies in English and French will be retrieved from the following databases: PsycINFO, CINAHL, ABI/INFORM, Business Source Complete, Scopus, and PubMed. The authors will extract, chart, categorize and summarize the data in the papers selected. Discussion: The results will be used to develop a tool for building trust between RTW stakeholders. More specifically, the operationalization of trust will be discussed in an expert consensus group on how to build trust between stakeholders and in turn facilitate the RTW. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO does not register scoping reviews. Trust Return to work Interrelations Work disability Common mental disorder Musculoskeletal disorder Figures Figure 1 Background Work disability, meaning “a partial or complete limitation of participation in work,” is a serious issue that impacts society as a whole (1). Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKs) and common mental disorders (CMDs) are among the leading causes of work disability and are of special interest as both can be work-related (1–3). MSK is defined as a set of symptoms and inflammatory or degenerative lesions of the locomotor system (4), and CMD, a group of mental disorders of a transitory nature that are frequently encountered in the population (1). Work disability following a MSK has been extensively researched for nearly four decades to facilitate the return to work (RTW) of those affected (5). Interest in CMDs has developed more recently, and it continues to grow (6). Yet, for both MSKs and CMDs, the RTW is considered a complex biopsychosocial process (7) that involves multiple stakeholders—the worker who is returning to work, their health care providers, the representatives from the workplace and the insurance company (8,9). Recently, facilitating stakeholder relations has been highlighted as an important avenue for facilitating the RTW, and for this purpose, the RTW coordinator can play a key role as a pivotal figure in this process (8,10). Building trust between stakeholders appears essential, as it affects at least two crucial and well-documented aspects of their relations: stakeholders’ concerted action (11), and the therapeutical relationship between the worker and their therapist, which is called the “therapeutic alliance” (12). Stakeholders’ concerted action, which is defined as “the exchange of pertinent information between stakeholders and the contribution of each actor’s expertise and resources for the benefit of a shared goal” (11), is impeded when stakeholders do not trust each other (13,14). Also, trust appears crucial for building the therapeutic alliance, which is seen as helpful (or possibly helpful) in facilitating the achievement of the patient’s goals (15–19). Despite the relevance of trust, and although its constituents have been identified in previous studies (see the Method section for more details on this), to our knowledge, no review has yet documented which constituents have been explored in the context of RTW. Moreover, in the field of research on RTW following a work disability, studies dealing with trust use it to refer to different realities, which are sometimes inconsistent with its prevailing definition in social science and business research. Since building trust between stakeholders could facilitate RTW following a work disability, it is essential to map the constituents of trust that have been explored thus far to clarify the concept of trust. We will conduct a scoping review to do so. Method Objective This scoping review aims to clarify the concept of trust in the context of RTW following a work disability due to a MSK or a CMD. The proposed scoping review is part of a larger project whose aim is to develop a relation building tool between RTW stakeholders. Protocol This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the nine steps of Peters and coll.’s methodology for scoping reviews (20) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) (21). Review question(s) What are the constituents of trust involved in the context of RTW following work disability due to a MSK or a CMD? Eligibility criteria Eligibility criteria were selected based on a Population-Concept-Context framework that is summarized below and presented in Table 1. Inclusion criteria: Workers in a work disability situation following a MSK or a CMD RTW process Trust Exclusion criteria: No full text Publication in a language other than English or French Inclusion of workers with more permanent conditions (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis or schizophrenia) and no distinctions made in the results Reintegration of workers without a pre-existing employment relationship All types of studies that document the RTW of at least one worker who experienced a work disability following a MSK or a CMD and for which full texts published in English or French are available will be included. Studies that include workers with more permanent conditions and do not make distinctions in the results will be excluded, as these conditions affect the very possibility of returning to work. Similarly, the work reintegration process is different from RTW, which justifies the exclusion of studies regarding workers without a pre-existing employment relationship. The papers selected must also document trust, which usually refers to the willingness of “the trustor,” to take a risk in regard to “the trustee” (15). The papers should specifically document: (1) a relationship between two or more RTW stakeholders in which (2) a situation of risk is documented. In a RTW context, risks could be: (i) hidden information risk, when the trustee unilaterally holds some privileged information, 1 or (ii) hidden action risk, when the trustor can’t verify some of the trustee’s actions, and trustee could use that to their advantage 2 (22,23). All full texts published in English and French will be included regardless of the country(ies) in which they were conducted. However, as the constituents of trust can be context-dependent, we will consider the country(ies) when extracting and analyzing the data (see the following section). Search strategy The following databases will be searched: PsycINFO, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, PubMed, ABI/INFORM, and Scopus. An initial limited search was conducted in PsycINFO 2022-08-21 to identify relevant articles. The results of this pilot search are shown in Table 2. The Boolean string will be adapted to each database. The references list of each paper selected will be screened for relevant papers. Finally, gray literature will be retrieved using manual searches on websites such as ResearchGate. Study selection All articles identified will be examined and uploaded into Zotero, and duplicates will be removed. First titles and abstracts, and then the full text, will be screened independently by two reviewers against the inclusion criteria. Any disagreements will be resolved by consensus or, in the event of an impasse, by a third person who is also specialized in the field of RTW following a work disability. The reason(s) for each rejected study’s exclusion will be documented. Data extraction Two reviewers will use individual data charting forms to record the pertinent information retrieved until an inter-rater agreement of at least 90% is reached. Both forms will be revised as necessary during the data extraction process. Table 3 contains the study metrics (e.g., author(s), publication date), the study context (e.g., country of origin and RTW intervention), the method, and the outcomes. As for Table 4, its purpose is to understand how trust works. It thus includes antecedents and consequences of trust, as documented in social science and business research, in addition to the two components of trust mentioned in the “Eligibility criteria” section. (1) Antecedents of trust include: (a) Benevolence, that is, any action or attitude that could make the trustor feel that the trustee cares about or wants what is good for them; 3 and (b) Credibility, defined as the expectation that the trustor can rely on what is said or written by the trustee 4 (15,18,24). (2) Consequences of trust can be observed through general manifestations of risk-taking behaviour (15,16,18,25), such as the trustee’s honesty and willingness to share information, a direct statement of trust by the trustor, and the trustor’s willingness to make concessions. Data analysis and presentation The aim of this scoping review is to clarify the concept of trust in the context of RTW following a work disability due to a MSK or a CMD. For this purpose, a descriptive analysis will first aim to portray the studies retrieved to identify relevant information to contextualize the trust constituents. For instance, the RTW intervention may itself involve interventions, such as shared decision-making, that may affect the therapeutic alliance and thus the development of trust. The trust constituents will be retrieved by deductive data coding (see Table 4) while keeping an open mind for the emergence of new categories. Quantitative data (e.g., the frequency of each constituent in the papers selected) and qualitative data (e.g., the categories identified) will then be reported and summarized. When relevant, trust building strategies and gaps in the literature will also be highlighted. The results of the studies retained will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a PRISMA diagram flowchart as shown in Fig. 1 (26). Finally, a conceptualization of trust that is adapted to the RTW context and insofar as possible operational will be reported in a synthesis table. 1 For instance, in a RTW context, the worker can trust that the occupational therapist’s proposed plan is the one best suited for them, and the therapist can trust that the worker’s concerns are real, but neither can be sure. 2 For instance, the occupational therapist cannot be certain the worker is motivated and does all the exercises included in the treatment plan as promised. The worker could reduce their efforts to stretch out the process. 3 For instance, a benevolent occupational therapist could take plenty of time listening to the worker’s concerns and fears. 4 For instance, the worker may have more (or less) trust in their employer depending on how previous disability cases were managed. Discussion This study aims to clarify the concept of trust to propose an operational conceptualization adapted to the context of RTW following a work disability due to a MSK or a CMD. Such a conceptualization seems essential, as it could serve to build trust among RTW stakeholders. The RTW coordinator is responsible for coordinating all individuals involved in the RTW process (8) and therefore plays a key role in building trust between stakeholders. Moreover, they may work for a care setting, the insurer or the workplace (26), and thus could have an impact on both the therapeutic alliance and stakeholders’ concerted action. By fostering RTW stakeholder relations, building trust would also facilitate the RTW (13,27,28). Scoping is an essential part of larger projects that aim to develop a strategic decision-making program to facilitate stakeholder relations. The final results will be discussed with the RTW coordinators using a focus group technique to develop tools that may help them improve the level of trust between RTW stakeholders. This scoping review is thus part of an effort to reduce the work disability burden. Ultimately, it will serve to equip RTW coordinators and other stakeholders to build trust, and, thus, facilitate the relations between the stakeholders during the RTW (8). Limitations and strengths This review is the first about trust amongst the stakeholders during the RTW. We nevertheless expect to retrieve several scientific papers on this subject since at least two well-documented topics in this context involve trust: concerted action and therapeutic alliance. In line with its objective of conceptual clarification, the strategy chosen for this review focuses on retrieving scientific articles, without assessing the quality of the selected articles. Moreover, this review does not look on gray literature, which could provide a more comprehensive view of the subject, in a second step. The framework developed by Peters and coll. (2020) will help us focus on the scoping review objectives, and two reviewers will be involved through the process to improve validity. List Of Abbreviations MSK: Musculoskeletal disorder CMD: Common mental disorder RTW: Return to work PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable Availability of data and materials Not applicable Funding The preparation of this article was funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC), and the translation fee was funded by the Université de Sherbrooke’s School of Business. Publication fees is paid by FRQSC. Acknowledgments Not applicable Consent for publication Not applicable Competing interests The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Authors’ contributions All authors prepared, read, and approved the final manuscript. References IRSST. L’incapacité au travail [Internet]. L’incapacité et le retour au travail. 2022 [cited March 14, 2022]. Available online: https://retourautravail.irsst.qc.ca/incapacite-au-travail/ March L, Smith EU, Hoy DG, Cross MJ, Sanchez-Riera L, Blyth F, et al. Burden of disability due to musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014;28(3):353‑66. Whiteford H, Ferrari A, Degenhardt L. Global burden of disease studies: Implications for mental and substance use disorders. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(6):1114‑20. Vézina M, Arcand R. Enquête québécoise sur des conditions de travail, d’emploi et de santé et de sécurité du travail (EQCOTESST) [Internet]. Montréal: IRSST; 2011 [cited March 16, 2022]. Available online: http://www.santecom.qc.ca/Bibliothequevirtuelle/INSPQ/9782896315475.pdf Feuerstein M. A multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, evaluation, and management of work disability. J Occup Rehabil. March 1, 1991;1(1):5‑12. Briand C, Durand MJ, St-Arnaud L, Corbière M. Work and mental health: Learning from return-to-work rehabilitation programs designed for workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Int J Law Psychiatry. July 1, 2007;30(4):444‑57. Nastasia I, Durand MJ, Coutu MF, Collinge C, Cibotaru A. Pratiques des milieux de travail pour assurer un retour en emploi sain et durable. Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail; 2017. Corbière M, Mazaniello-Chézol M, Bastien MF, Wathieu E, Bouchard R, Panaccio A, et al. Stakeholders’ Role and Actions in the Return-to-Work Process of Workers on Sick-Leave Due to Common Mental Disorders: A Scoping Review. J Occup Rehabil. Sept 2020;30(3):381‑419. Loisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, Vézina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability Prevention. Dis Manag Health Outcomes. July 1, 2001;9(7):351‑60. Corbière M, Durand MJ. Du trouble mental à l’incapacité au travail: Une perspective transdisciplinaire qui vise à mieux saisir cette problématique et à offrir des pistes d’intervention. PUQ; 2011. Durand MJ, Vachon B, Loisel P, Berthelette D. Constructing the program impact theory for an evidence-based work rehabilitation program for workers with low back pain. Work. 2003;21(3):233‑42. Hall A, Wren M, Kirby S. Care Planning in Mental Health: Promoting Recovery [Internet]. Hoboken, UNITED KINGDOM: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated; 2013 [cited May 16, 2022]. Available online: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/usherbrookemgh-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1372242 Coutu MF, Légaré F, Durand MJ, Corbière M, Stacey D, Bainbridge L, et al. Programme de prise de décision entre l’ergothérapeute et le travailleur ayant une incapacité due à un trouble musculosquelettique persistant: perspective des acteurs en réadaptation. IRSST-Direction des communications et de la valorisation de la recherche; 2016. Gouin MM. Prise de décisions en contexte de réadaptation au travail : un processus concerté? : étude de cas de travailleurs atteints de troubles musculosquelettiques. 2015 [cited May 11, 2022]; Available online: https://corpus.ulaval.ca/jspui/handle/20.500.11794/25833 Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):709‑34. Ross W, LaCroix J. Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. Int J Confl Manag. 1996; Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1998;23(3):393‑404. Schoorman FD, Mayer RC, Davis JH. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, and Future. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32(2):344‑54. Luborsky L, Crits-Christoph P, Alexander L, Margolis M, Cohen M. Two helping alliance methods for predicting outcomes of psychotherapy: A counting signs vs. a global rating method. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1983; Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. Oct 1, 2020;18:2119‑26. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. Jan 1, 2015;4(1):1. Bergen M, Dutta S, Walker OC. Agency Relationships in Marketing: A Review of the Implications and Applications of Agency and Related Theories. J Mark. July 1, 1992;56(3):1‑24. Baye MR, Prince J, Squalli J. Managerial economics and business strategy. Vol. 5. McGraw-Hill New York; 2006. Makaoui N. La confiance inter-organisationnelle : essai de conceptualisation et proposition de mesure. Quest Manag. 2014;7(3):39‑60. Pruitt DG. Negotiation behavior. New York ; Academic Press; 1981. (Organizational and occupational psychology). Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. Apr. 1 2021;88:105906. Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-Based Return-to-Work Interventions: Optimizing the Role of Stakeholders in Implementation and Research. J Occup Rehabil. Dec 2005;15(4):525‑42. Coutu MF, Durand MJ, Coté D, Tremblay D, Sylvain C, Gouin MM, et al. Building a Common Language to Facilitate Discussion Among Stakeholders in Work Disability: A Consensus Group Approach. J Occup Rehabil [Internet]. Janv. 25, 2022 [cited May 15, 2022]; Available online: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10926-022-10022-1 tables Table 1: Framework for determining papers’ eligibility based on the review question Population Individuals with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKs) OR common mental disorders (CMDs) E.g., low back pain, neck pain, joint pain, tendonitis, or carpal tunnel syndrome; OR depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorders Concept · Trust, i.e., 1. Relationship between two or more stakeholders 2. At least one of the two situations of risk on the right 1. Stakeholders = The worker who is returning to work, representatives of the workplace (e.g., manager, supervisor) and the insurer (e.g., rehabilitation advisor), and healthcare professionals (e.g., physician, occupational therapist) 2. Hidden information risk OR hidden action risk Context Work disability Absence from work or work limitation Table 2: Pilot search results Keywords searched Date of search Database searched Number of publications retrieved (( MM "Cooperation" OR MM "Collaboration" OR MM "Trust (Social Behavior)" OR MM "Vocational Rehabilitation" OR MM "Reemployment") OR TI alliance* OR SU alliance* OR AB alliance* OR TI concerted OR SU concerted OR AB concerted) OR TI concerta* OR SU concerta* OR AB concerta* AND (MM "Disability Management" OR MM "Employee Leave Benefits") OR TI "return to work" OR SU "return to work" OR AB "return to work" OR TI "work resumption" OR SU "work resumption" OR AB "work resumption" OR TI rehab* OR SU rehab* OR AB rehab* AND (MM "Disabled Personnel" OR MM "Impaired Professionals") OR TI disab* OR SU disab* OR AB disab* OR TI impair* OR SU impair* OR AB impair* AND TI musculoskeletal OR SU musculoskeletal OR TI mental OR SU mental 2022-08-21 PsycInfo (EBSCO) 681 (Only works written in French or English) Table 3: Initial data charting form Title Author(s) Year of publication Country of origin Context of study Method Key findings Table 4: Constituents of trust charting form (1) Antecedents (2) Components of trust (3) Consequences a) Benevolence b) Credibility c) An interaction between two or more people/parties d) A risk situation e) Trustee’s honesty and willingness to share information f) Direct statement of trust by the trustor g) Trustor’s willingness to make concessions Supplementary Files PRISMAPchecklist.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-2146691","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":142811507,"identity":"be1fce79-00ed-4485-8a8d-8014f10d3065","order_by":0,"name":"Hermann Brice Tegninko Tamokoue","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-0076","institution":"Universite de Sherbrooke Ecole de Gestion","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hermann","middleName":"Brice Tegninko","lastName":"Tamokoue","suffix":""},{"id":142811508,"identity":"1a7beb79-befb-45ee-8a38-81891e1b6212","order_by":1,"name":"Marie-Michelle Gouin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universite de Sherbrooke Ecole de Gestion","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marie-Michelle","middleName":"","lastName":"Gouin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2022-10-09 05:01:33","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2146691/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2146691/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":29613294,"identity":"426f0fff-8dba-4966-a2fe-2bd3a503c6c9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-11-28 20:18:28","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":144725,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA scoping diagram process\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2146691/v1/0722cca5a343dfbc8c13d5f9.jpg"},{"id":39432640,"identity":"67335c03-abec-4a3d-b518-78db240d5949","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-07-03 02:21:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":405767,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2146691/v1/c277d7ab-b426-47cd-a79a-c2bae530b177.pdf"},{"id":29613295,"identity":"9743e298-7926-4b72-b692-9428a3bab095","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-11-28 20:18:28","extension":"docx","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":34551,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PRISMAPchecklist.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2146691/v1/6dac2c4d2afc89c24d47bd94.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"The constituents of trust in the context of a return to work following a work disability: A scoping review protocol","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eWork disability, meaning \u0026ldquo;a partial or complete limitation of participation in work,\u0026rdquo; is a serious issue that impacts society as a whole (1). Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKs) and common mental disorders (CMDs) are among the leading causes of work disability and are of special interest as both can be work-related (1\u0026ndash;3). MSK is defined as a set of symptoms and inflammatory or degenerative lesions of the locomotor system (4), and CMD, a group of mental disorders of a transitory nature that are frequently encountered in the population (1). Work disability following a MSK has been extensively researched for nearly four decades to facilitate the return to work (RTW) of those affected (5). Interest in CMDs has developed more recently, and it continues to grow (6). Yet, for both MSKs and CMDs, the RTW is considered a complex biopsychosocial process (7) that involves multiple stakeholders\u0026mdash;the worker who is returning to work, their health care providers, the representatives from the workplace and the insurance company (8,9).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, facilitating stakeholder relations has been highlighted as an important avenue for facilitating the RTW, and for this purpose, the RTW coordinator can play a key role as a pivotal figure in this process (8,10). Building trust between stakeholders appears essential, as it affects at least two crucial and well-documented aspects of their relations: stakeholders\u0026rsquo; concerted action (11), and the therapeutical relationship between the worker and their therapist, which is called the \u0026ldquo;therapeutic alliance\u0026rdquo; (12). Stakeholders\u0026rsquo; concerted action, which is defined as \u0026ldquo;the exchange of pertinent information between stakeholders and the contribution of each actor\u0026rsquo;s expertise and resources for the benefit of a shared goal\u0026rdquo; (11), is impeded when stakeholders do not trust each other (13,14). Also, trust appears crucial for building the therapeutic alliance, which is seen as helpful (or possibly helpful) in facilitating the achievement of the patient\u0026rsquo;s goals (15\u0026ndash;19).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the relevance of trust, and although its constituents have been identified in previous studies (see the Method section for more details on this), to our knowledge, no review has yet documented which constituents have been explored in the context of RTW. Moreover, in the field of research on RTW following a work disability, studies dealing with trust use it to refer to different realities, which are sometimes inconsistent with its prevailing definition in social science and business research. Since building trust between stakeholders could facilitate RTW following a work disability, it is essential to map the constituents of trust that have been explored thus far to clarify the concept of trust. We will conduct a scoping review to do so.\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjective\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review aims to clarify the concept of trust in the context of RTW following a work disability due to a MSK or a CMD. The proposed scoping review is part of a larger project whose aim is to develop a relation building tool between RTW stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProtocol\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the nine steps of Peters and coll.\u0026rsquo;s methodology for scoping reviews (20) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) (21).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReview question(s)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhat are the constituents of trust involved in the context of RTW following work disability due to a MSK or a CMD?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEligibility criteria\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEligibility criteria were selected based on a Population-Concept-Context framework that is summarized below and presented in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInclusion criteria:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorkers in a work disability situation following a MSK or a CMD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRTW process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExclusion criteria:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo full text\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublication in a language other than English or French\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInclusion of workers with more permanent conditions (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis or schizophrenia) and no distinctions made in the results\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReintegration of workers without a pre-existing employment relationship\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll types of studies that document the RTW of at least one worker who experienced a work disability following a MSK or a CMD and for which full texts published in English or French are available will be included. Studies that include workers with more permanent conditions and do not make distinctions in the results will be excluded, as these conditions affect the very possibility of returning to work. Similarly, the work reintegration process is different from RTW, which justifies the exclusion of studies regarding workers without a pre-existing employment relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe papers selected must also document trust, which usually refers to the willingness of \u0026ldquo;the trustor,\u0026rdquo; to take a risk in regard to \u0026ldquo;the trustee\u0026rdquo; (15). The papers should specifically document: (1) a relationship between two or more RTW stakeholders in which (2) a situation of risk is documented. In a RTW context, risks could be: (i) hidden information risk, when the trustee unilaterally holds some privileged information,\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e or (ii) hidden action risk, when the trustor can\u0026rsquo;t verify some of the trustee\u0026rsquo;s actions, and trustee could use that to their advantage\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (22,23).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll full texts published in English and French will be included regardless of the country(ies) in which they were conducted. However, as the constituents of trust can be context-dependent, we will consider the country(ies) when extracting and analyzing the data (see the following section).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSearch strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following databases will be searched: PsycINFO, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, PubMed, ABI/INFORM, and Scopus. An initial limited search was conducted in PsycINFO 2022-08-21 to identify relevant articles. The results of this pilot search are shown in Table 2. The Boolean string will be adapted to each database. The references list of each paper selected will be screened for relevant papers. Finally, gray literature will be retrieved using manual searches on websites such as ResearchGate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy selection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll articles identified will be examined and uploaded into Zotero, and duplicates will be removed. First titles and abstracts, and then the full text, will be screened independently by two reviewers against the inclusion criteria. Any disagreements will be resolved by consensus or, in the event of an impasse, by a third person who is also specialized in the field of RTW following a work disability. The reason(s) for each rejected study\u0026rsquo;s exclusion will be documented.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData extraction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo reviewers will use individual data charting forms to record the pertinent information retrieved until an inter-rater agreement of at least 90% is reached. Both forms will be revised as necessary during the data extraction process. Table 3 contains the study metrics (e.g., author(s), publication date), the study context (e.g., country of origin and RTW intervention), the method, and the outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs for Table 4, its purpose is to understand how trust works. It thus includes antecedents and consequences of trust, as documented in social science and business research, in addition to the two components of trust mentioned in the \u0026ldquo;Eligibility criteria\u0026rdquo; section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1) Antecedents of trust include: (a) Benevolence, that is, any action or attitude that could make the trustor feel that the trustee cares about or wants what is good for them;\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e and (b) Credibility, defined as the expectation that the trustor can rely on what is said or written by the trustee\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e (15,18,24).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) Consequences of trust can be observed through general manifestations of risk-taking behaviour (15,16,18,25), such as the trustee\u0026rsquo;s honesty and willingness to share information, a direct statement of trust by the trustor, and the trustor\u0026rsquo;s willingness to make concessions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData analysis and presentation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe aim of this scoping review is to clarify the concept of trust in the context of RTW following a work disability due to a MSK or a CMD. For this purpose, a descriptive analysis will first aim to portray the studies retrieved to identify relevant information to contextualize the trust constituents. For instance, the RTW intervention may itself involve interventions, such as shared decision-making, that may affect the therapeutic alliance and thus the development of trust. The trust constituents will be retrieved by deductive data coding (see Table 4) while keeping an open mind for the emergence of new categories. Quantitative data (e.g., the frequency of each constituent in the papers selected) and qualitative data (e.g., the categories identified) will then be reported and summarized. When relevant, trust building strategies and gaps in the literature will also be highlighted. The results of the studies retained will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a PRISMA diagram flowchart as shown in Fig. 1 (26). Finally, a conceptualization of trust that is adapted to the RTW context and insofar as possible operational will be reported in a synthesis table.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ftn1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e For instance, in a RTW context, the worker can trust that the occupational therapist\u0026rsquo;s proposed plan is the one best suited for them, and the therapist can trust that the worker\u0026rsquo;s concerns are real, but neither can be sure.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"ftn2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e For instance, the occupational therapist cannot be certain the worker is motivated and does all the exercises included in the treatment plan as promised. The worker could reduce their efforts to stretch out the process.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"ftn3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e For instance, a benevolent occupational therapist could take plenty of time listening to the worker\u0026rsquo;s concerns and fears.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"ftn4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e For instance, the worker may have more (or less) trust in their employer depending on how previous disability cases were managed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to clarify the concept of trust to propose an operational conceptualization adapted to the context of RTW following a work disability due to a MSK or a CMD. Such a conceptualization seems essential, as it could serve to build trust among RTW stakeholders. The RTW coordinator is responsible for coordinating all individuals involved in the RTW process (8) and therefore plays a key role in building trust between stakeholders. Moreover, they may work for a care setting, the insurer or the workplace (26), and thus could have an impact on both the therapeutic alliance and stakeholders\u0026rsquo; concerted action. By fostering RTW stakeholder relations, building trust would also facilitate the RTW (13,27,28).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScoping is an essential part of larger projects that aim to develop a strategic decision-making program to facilitate stakeholder relations. The final results will be discussed with the RTW coordinators using a focus group technique to develop tools that may help them improve the level of trust between RTW stakeholders. This scoping review is thus part of an effort to reduce the work disability burden. Ultimately, it will serve to equip RTW coordinators and other stakeholders to build trust, and, thus, facilitate the relations between the stakeholders during the RTW (8).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and strengths\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis review is the first about trust amongst the stakeholders during the RTW. We nevertheless expect to retrieve several scientific papers on this subject since at least two well-documented topics in this context involve trust: concerted action and therapeutic alliance. In line with its objective of conceptual clarification, the strategy chosen for this review focuses on retrieving scientific articles, without assessing the quality of the selected articles. Moreover, this review does not look on gray literature, which could provide a more comprehensive view of the subject, in a second step. The framework developed by Peters and coll. (2020) will help us focus on the scoping review objectives, and two reviewers will be involved through the process to improve validity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"List Of Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMSK:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMusculoskeletal disorder\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCMD:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eCommon mental disorder\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRTW:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eReturn to work\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePRISMA:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePRISMA-ScR:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe preparation of this article was funded by the Fonds de recherche du Qu\u0026eacute;bec \u0026ndash; Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; et culture (FRQSC), and the translation fee was funded by the Universit\u0026eacute; de Sherbrooke\u0026rsquo;s School of Business. Publication fees is paid by FRQSC.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors prepared, read, and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIRSST. L\u0026rsquo;incapacit\u0026eacute; au travail [Internet]. L\u0026rsquo;incapacit\u0026eacute; et le retour au travail. 2022 [cited March 14, 2022]. Available online: https://retourautravail.irsst.qc.ca/incapacite-au-travail/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch L, Smith EU, Hoy DG, Cross MJ, Sanchez-Riera L, Blyth F, et al. Burden of disability due to musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014;28(3):353‑66. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhiteford H, Ferrari A, Degenhardt L. Global burden of disease studies: Implications for mental and substance use disorders. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(6):1114‑20. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eV\u0026eacute;zina M, Arcand R. Enqu\u0026ecirc;te qu\u0026eacute;b\u0026eacute;coise sur des conditions de travail, d\u0026rsquo;emploi et de sant\u0026eacute; et de s\u0026eacute;curit\u0026eacute; du travail (EQCOTESST) [Internet]. Montr\u0026eacute;al: IRSST; 2011 [cited March 16, 2022]. Available online: http://www.santecom.qc.ca/Bibliothequevirtuelle/INSPQ/9782896315475.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeuerstein M. A multidisciplinary approach to the prevention, evaluation, and management of work disability. J Occup Rehabil. March 1, 1991;1(1):5‑12. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBriand C, Durand MJ, St-Arnaud L, Corbi\u0026egrave;re M. Work and mental health: Learning from return-to-work rehabilitation programs designed for workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Int J Law Psychiatry. July 1, 2007;30(4):444‑57. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNastasia I, Durand MJ, Coutu MF, Collinge C, Cibotaru A. Pratiques des milieux de travail pour assurer un retour en emploi sain et durable. Institut de recherche Robert-Sauv\u0026eacute; en sant\u0026eacute; et en s\u0026eacute;curit\u0026eacute; du travail; 2017. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorbi\u0026egrave;re M, Mazaniello-Ch\u0026eacute;zol M, Bastien MF, Wathieu E, Bouchard R, Panaccio A, et al. Stakeholders\u0026rsquo; Role and Actions in the Return-to-Work Process of Workers on Sick-Leave Due to Common Mental Disorders: A Scoping Review. J Occup Rehabil. Sept 2020;30(3):381‑419. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoisel P, Durand MJ, Berthelette D, V\u0026eacute;zina N, Baril R, Gagnon D, et al. Disability Prevention. Dis Manag Health Outcomes. July 1, 2001;9(7):351‑60. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorbi\u0026egrave;re M, Durand MJ. Du trouble mental \u0026agrave; l\u0026rsquo;incapacit\u0026eacute; au travail: Une perspective transdisciplinaire qui vise \u0026agrave; mieux saisir cette probl\u0026eacute;matique et \u0026agrave; offrir des pistes d\u0026rsquo;intervention. PUQ; 2011. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDurand MJ, Vachon B, Loisel P, Berthelette D. Constructing the program impact theory for an evidence-based work rehabilitation program for workers with low back pain. Work. 2003;21(3):233‑42. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHall A, Wren M, Kirby S. Care Planning in Mental Health: Promoting Recovery [Internet]. Hoboken, UNITED KINGDOM: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Incorporated; 2013 [cited May 16, 2022]. Available online: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/usherbrookemgh-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1372242\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoutu MF, L\u0026eacute;gar\u0026eacute; F, Durand MJ, Corbi\u0026egrave;re M, Stacey D, Bainbridge L, et al. Programme de prise de d\u0026eacute;cision entre l\u0026rsquo;ergoth\u0026eacute;rapeute et le travailleur ayant une incapacit\u0026eacute; due \u0026agrave; un trouble musculosquelettique persistant: perspective des acteurs en r\u0026eacute;adaptation. IRSST-Direction des communications et de la valorisation de la recherche; 2016. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGouin MM. Prise de d\u0026eacute;cisions en contexte de r\u0026eacute;adaptation au travail : un processus concert\u0026eacute;? : \u0026eacute;tude de cas de travailleurs atteints de troubles musculosquelettiques. 2015 [cited May 11, 2022]; Available online: https://corpus.ulaval.ca/jspui/handle/20.500.11794/25833\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):709‑34. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoss W, LaCroix J. Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. Int J Confl Manag. 1996; \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1998;23(3):393‑404. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchoorman FD, Mayer RC, Davis JH. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, and Future. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32(2):344‑54. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuborsky L, Crits-Christoph P, Alexander L, Margolis M, Cohen M. Two helping alliance methods for predicting outcomes of psychotherapy: A counting signs vs. a global rating method. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1983; \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. Oct 1, 2020;18:2119‑26. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. Jan 1, 2015;4(1):1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBergen M, Dutta S, Walker OC. Agency Relationships in Marketing: A Review of the Implications and Applications of Agency and Related Theories. J Mark. July 1, 1992;56(3):1‑24. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaye MR, Prince J, Squalli J. Managerial economics and business strategy. Vol. 5. McGraw-Hill New York; 2006. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakaoui N. La confiance inter-organisationnelle : essai de conceptualisation et proposition de mesure. Quest Manag. 2014;7(3):39‑60. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePruitt DG. Negotiation behavior. New York ; Academic Press; 1981. (Organizational and occupational psychology). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. Apr. 1 2021;88:105906.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-Based Return-to-Work Interventions: Optimizing the Role of Stakeholders in Implementation and Research. J Occup Rehabil. Dec 2005;15(4):525‑42. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoutu MF, Durand MJ, Cot\u0026eacute; D, Tremblay D, Sylvain C, Gouin MM, et al. Building a Common Language to Facilitate Discussion Among Stakeholders in Work Disability: A Consensus Group Approach. J Occup Rehabil [Internet]. Janv. 25, 2022 [cited May 15, 2022]; Available online: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10926-022-10022-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1: Framework\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003efor determining papers\u0026rsquo; eligibility based on\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the review question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"116\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePopulation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"186\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndividuals with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKs) OR common mental disorders (CMDs)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"299\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE.g., low back pain, neck pain, joint pain, tendonitis, or carpal tunnel syndrome; OR depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorders\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"116\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConcept\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"186\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; \u0026nbsp;Trust, i.e.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp;Relationship between two or more stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp;At least one of the two situations of risk on the right\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"299\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. \u0026nbsp;Stakeholders = The worker who is returning to work, representatives of the workplace (e.g., manager, supervisor) and the insurer (e.g., rehabilitation advisor), and healthcare professionals (e.g., physician, occupational therapist)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. \u0026nbsp;Hidden information risk OR hidden action risk\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"116\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eContext\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"186\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork disability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"299\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbsence from work or work limitation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2: Pilot search results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"54.817275747508305%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKeywords searched\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"15.282392026578073%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDate of search\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.122923588039868%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDatabase searched\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"16.777408637873755%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of publications retrieved\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"54.817275747508305%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(( MM \u0026quot;Cooperation\u0026quot; OR MM \u0026quot;Collaboration\u0026quot; OR MM \u0026quot;Trust (Social Behavior)\u0026quot; OR MM \u0026quot;Vocational Rehabilitation\u0026quot; OR MM \u0026quot;Reemployment\u0026quot;) OR TI alliance* OR SU alliance* OR AB alliance* OR TI concerted OR SU concerted OR AB concerted) OR TI concerta* OR SU concerta* OR AB concerta*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAND\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(MM \u0026quot;Disability Management\u0026quot; OR MM \u0026quot;Employee Leave Benefits\u0026quot;) OR TI \u0026quot;return to work\u0026quot; OR SU \u0026quot;return to work\u0026quot; OR AB \u0026quot;return to work\u0026quot; OR TI \u0026quot;work resumption\u0026quot; OR SU \u0026quot;work resumption\u0026quot; OR AB \u0026quot;work resumption\u0026quot; OR TI rehab* OR SU rehab* OR AB rehab*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAND\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(MM \u0026quot;Disabled Personnel\u0026quot; OR MM \u0026quot;Impaired Professionals\u0026quot;) OR TI disab* OR SU disab* OR AB disab* OR TI impair* OR SU impair* OR AB impair*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAND\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTI musculoskeletal OR SU musculoskeletal OR TI mental OR SU mental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"15.282392026578073%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022-08-21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"13.122923588039868%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePsycInfo (EBSCO)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"16.777408637873755%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e681\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Only works written in French or English)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3: Initial data charting form\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"9.563758389261745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTitle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthor(s)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear of publication\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry of origin\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"15.939597315436242%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eContext of study\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"14.261744966442953%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMethod\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"17.449664429530202%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey findings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4: Constituents of trust charting form\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" width=\"595\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"150\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(1)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eAntecedents\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"227\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(2)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eComponents of trust\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"217\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(3)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsequences\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"150\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ea) \u0026nbsp; Benevolence\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eb) \u0026nbsp; Credibility\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"227\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ec) \u0026nbsp; An interaction between two or more people/parties\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ed) \u0026nbsp; A risk situation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"217\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ee) \u0026nbsp; Trustee\u0026rsquo;s honesty and willingness to share information\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ef) \u0026nbsp;Direct statement of trust by the trustor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eg) \u0026nbsp;Trustor\u0026rsquo;s willingness to make concessions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Trust, Return to work, Interrelations, Work disability, Common mental disorder, Musculoskeletal disorder","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2146691/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2146691/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e Long-term work disability due to a musculoskeletal disorder (MSK) or a common mental disorder (CMD) is a serious issue that affects the whole of society. Facilitating relationships between the multiple stakeholders involved in someone’s return to work (RTW) has emerged as a key avenue for a successful RTW and must include building trust between stakeholders. Although the constituents of trust have been identified in previous social science and business studies, no review has yet documented which have been explored in the context of RTW.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e We will conduct a scoping review using Peters and coll.’s methodology and the PRISMA-P methodology to identify the constituents of trust that have been explored in the context of RTW following a work disability due to a MSK or a CMD. Full-text studies in English and French will be retrieved from the following databases: PsycINFO, CINAHL, ABI/INFORM, Business Source Complete, Scopus, and PubMed. The authors will extract, chart, categorize and summarize the data in the papers selected.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiscussion:\u003c/strong\u003e The results will be used to develop a tool for building trust between RTW stakeholders. More specifically, the operationalization of trust will be discussed in an expert consensus group on how to build trust between stakeholders and in turn facilitate the RTW.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSystematic review registration:\u003c/strong\u003e PROSPERO does not register scoping reviews.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The constituents of trust in the context of a return to work following a work disability: A scoping review protocol","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2022-11-28 20:18:23","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-2146691/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d06ae463-6d6a-4b72-9564-11f41d181d5d","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 28th, 2022","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2023-07-03T02:21:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2022-11-28 20:18:23","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-2146691","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-2146691","identity":"rs-2146691","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"rHA-KDH7Qsr4HCuvH75dn","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}