A Life Course Perspective to Spinal Cord Injury and Employment Participation in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined life course differences in the employment of Canadians with spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVE: To compare employment participation of young/middle-aged and older adults with SCI and to examine the association between employment and demographic and health factors, SCI-related needs, and social role participation at the 2 life phases. METHODS: A sample of young/middle-aged (18-54 years; n = 959) and older adults (55-64 years; n = 364) with SCI was recruited as part of a larger Canadian community survey. Pre- and postinjury employment were compared. Demographic and health factors, number of unmet SCI needs, and social role participation were collected and compared by life phase and employment status. Two multivariable logistic regression models were conducted and compared for young/middle-aged and older adults. RESULTS: Close to one-third of participants with SCI were working post injury (32%), a decline from the 62% of respondents working prior to their injury. Participants were more likely to work in less physically demanding job sectors including business/administration or health/science/teaching. An examination of life phase differences showed that young/middle-aged adults were more likely to be employed post injury (36%) when compared to older respondents (12% employed) who were more likely to report being retired (43%). Multivariable analyses revealed that for young/middle-aged adults, being married, attaining a postsecondary education, and having fewer unmet SCI needs were related to employment. Among older adults, having a traumatic injury was related to involvement in paid work. For both young/middle-aged and older adults, participating in more social roles was related to working. CONCLUSION: A life course perspective is important to understanding similarities and differences between young/middle-aged and older adults with SCI in their employment participation. Tailored programs and policies should be designed to promote labor force involvement at different phases of the working life course.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».