title: Applying theories to better understand socio-political challenges in implementing evidence-based work disability prevention strategies.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This article explores and applies theories for analyzing socio-political aspects of implementation of work disability prevention (WDP) strategies.
  
  
  METHODS
  For the analysis, theories from political science are explained and discussed in relation to case examples from three jurisdictions (Sweden, Brazil and Québec).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Implementation of WDP strategies may be studied through a conceptual framework that targets: (1) the institutional system in which policy-makers and other stakeholders reside; (2) the ambiguity and conflicts regarding what to do and how to do it; (3) the bounded rationality, path dependency and social systems of different stakeholders; and (4) coalitions formed by different stakeholders and power relations between them. In the case examples, the design of social insurance systems, the access to and infrastructure of healthcare systems, labor market policies, employers' level of responsibility, the regulatory environment, and the general knowledge of WDP issues among stakeholders played different roles in the implementation of policies based on scientific evidence.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Future research may involve participatory approaches focusing on building coalitions and communities of practice with policy-makers and stakeholders, in order to build trust, facilitate cooperation, and to better promote evidence utilization. Implications for Rehabilitation Implementation of work disability prevention policies are subject to contextual influences from the socio-political setting and from relationships between stakeholders Stakeholders involved in implementing strategies are bound to act based on their interests and previous courses of action To promote research uptake on the policy level, stakeholders and researchers need to engage in collaboration and translational activities Political stakeholders at the government and community levels need to be more directly involved as partners in the production and utilization of evidence.
authors.affiliation: a Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Community Medicine , Linköping University , Linköping , Sweden.|b HELIX Competence Centre, Linköping University , Linköping , Sweden.
authors.forename: Christian
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Ståhl
authors.affiliation: c School of Health Systems and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Pretoria , Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
authors.forename: Katia
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Costa-Black
authors.affiliation: d Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto , Toronto , Canada.|e Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College , Toronto , Canada.
authors.forename: Patrick
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Loisel
mesh_terms: D000062:Accidents, Occupational / Q000517:prevention & control; D003695:Delivery of Health Care; D055317:Evidence-Based Practice; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000517:prevention & control; D016272:Occupational Health; D012050:Rehabilitation, Vocational; D012943:Social Security
keywords: Implementation; evidence-based practice; health policy; rehabilitation; return to work