The Influence of Hardiness Levels on the Rate of Return to Work For Those who Have Sustained a Back Injury

Abstract

Existentialists suggest that our responsibility is to discover our own meaning in life which can be recognized through creative works, experiences and relationships, and attitudinal acknowledgement and/or choice of one’s current circumstances (Frankl, 2006). It is through the will to meaning, the primary motivational drive noted by Frankl, that humans are able to transcend and live a fulfilled life despite perceptions of unavoidable sufferings. Therefore, existential courage/hardiness helps one to engage in coping with problems rather than denying or avoiding them. Furthermore, it also relies on socially supportive interactions with others and the capacity to learn from this perpetual process (Maddi, Khoshaba, Harvey, Fazel, & Resurreccion, 2011), which can have a profound influence on one’s overall health status. In times of suffering, such as a debilitating physical injury or illness, the concept of hardiness could potentially be used to facilitate recovery or coping for those individuals. The current practice of rehabilitation for those who are not working due to work-related injury or illness, is a combination of physiological and psychosocial therapy (i.e., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and psychological therapy) (Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board, 2013). In the review of the research in this thesis, the researcher was unable to find other studies that explored hardiness in a therapeutic context. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between hardiness and the rate of recovery and return to work. Specifically, this study investigated those who had a back injury and an accepted Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) claim in Saskatchewan. WCB provided several hundred contact names to be used as prospective participants for this study. The first hypothesis, which predicted a significant negative correlation between hardiness and return to work, revealed no statistically significant relationship (r = .002, p = .98, n = 127). Contrary to expectations, the second hypothesis, which measured the influence of hardiness on the rate of return to work after accounting for demographical variables, resulted in hardiness score not being statistically significant predictor; F(1, 74) = .55, p = .46. There were, however, statistically significant differences found in supplementary analyses.