91��ɫ

As many organizations remain unprepared to address opioid-related challenges at work, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies Associate Professor Duygu Birick Gulseren is helping employers better understand what contributes to opioid dependence and how employers can respond more effectively.

For a decade, Gulseren, who teaches human resource management in 91��ɫ's School of Administrative Studies, has researched chronic pain in the workplace. During that time, one issue kept surfacing.

“Substance dependence is far more common among employees than most people realize,” says Gulseren. “Opioids kept coming up as an important and often overlooked part of that picture.”

The impacts of opioid dependence can be significant for both workers and organizations, she says. For personnel, it can contribute to anxiety, reduced concentration and chronic health challenges. For employers, it can mean increased absenteeism and presenteeism, reduced productivity, higher turnover and rising disability and health care costs.

Despite the effect dependence can have on workers and companies, Gulseren and frequent collaborator Zhanna Lyubykh, an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University, have found many employers remain unprepared to respond.

“Many organizations still lack effective and practical strategies for addressing opioid-related challenges at work,” says Gulseren. “They often don’t know how to approach it.”

That gap led to a paper, , which aims to provide organizations with a clearer understanding of what contributes to opioid use in the workplace and what employers can do to address it.

In order to do so, the researchers reviewed a broad body of literature on opioid use disorder, workplace injuries, job stress, culture, drug-testing policies and recovery programs. They also examined evidence on accommodations and other measures designed to help employees manage substance-use challenges and return to work successfully.

Across the literature they reviewed, several themes emerged. According to Gulseren, one of the most notable findings was that employment setting conditions themselves can contribute to opioid dependence.

A common assumption is that opioid use disorder is primarily a personal issue rooted in an individual's own circumstances.

“Our research points to something different: conditions like poor ergonomics, high stress, pressure to return to work too soon after an injury or heavy physical demands with little control over one's work can push employees toward dependence,” says Gulseren.

Across the literature, another theme emerged: workplace responses can be just as important as workplace conditions. When organizations addressed opioid use through measures such as drug testing or strict disciplinary policies, the evidence suggested those approaches often fell short.

Punitive measures such as drug testing and strict disciplinary approaches were often found to have limited success. Some studies reviewed by Gulseren even identified links between punitive policies and higher rates of opioid use. She and Lyubykh found such approaches can increase employee distress, create perceptions of unfairness, discourage people from seeking help and encourage workers to conceal substance-use problems.

Instead, the researchers found strategies focused on reducing stigma, providing accommodations and helping staff through treatment and recovery were often associated with better outcomes.

Across the studies they reviewed, these approaches were linked to lower rates of substance use, safer workplaces, greater willingness among employees to seek help, improved retention and more successful recovery and return-to-work outcomes.

For Gulseren, the review was about more than identifying insights from existing research. It was also an opportunity to explore practical ways organizations could better assist personnel.

“It was important to us that the work translate into applicable, practical recommendations that people in HR and management roles could actually put into practice,” says Gulseren.

The published paper offers recommendations split into two categories: prevention and response.

On the prevention side, it encourages employers to focus on reducing workplace injuries, improving ergonomics, lowering job-related stress, creating psychologically safer spaces and ensuring employees have adequate opportunities for rest and recovery.

For those already struggling with opioid dependence, they recommend non-judgmental conversations, reducing stigma, recognizing signs of distress, providing appropriate accommodations and facilitating treatment and recovery. The researchers also emphasize the importance of structured return-to-work plans and ongoing support after treatment.

The recommendations, Gulseren says, are intended to give organizations the tools and understanding they need to better respond to staff needs while improving outcomes for companies as a whole.

“We hope it gives managers concrete, evidence-based tools both preventive (how to minimize the likelihood of opioid-related harm in the first place) and reactive (how to support employees through opioid use disorder and recovery when it does occur) ways,” says Gulseren.

For her, that work is especially important because conversations about opioid use in the workplace are often oversimplified.

“Opioids can be a necessary part of chronic pain management for many employees, so this isn't a simple ‘opioids are bad’ story,” says Gulseren. “Organizations need better ways to manage and respond to this reality. We hope our work encourages organizations to move away from punitive responses and toward more supportive approaches.”

Tags: