Exploring Canadian Career Firefighters’ Understanding of the Return-to-Work Process after Musculoskeletal Injuries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Firefighters perform dangerous and physically demanding work, increasing their risk of musculoskeletal injuries that can lead to work absences. Return-to-work procedures can help firefighters return-to-work. The purpose was to explore what firefighters understand about return-to-work procedures in their workplaces, and what firefighters believe the facilitators and barriers to return-to-work are. METHODS: Thirty-eight Canadian career firefighters were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Qualitative description methods were used to analyze the transcripts. Two researchers performed the inductive coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: 1. Variation in the return-to-work process knowledge among firefighters; 2. Accessible medical resources and treatments for the recovery of an injury; 3. Modified work must be meaningful and suitable; 4. Pressures to return-to-work too soon can lead to negative consequences; 5. Heavy physical demands of firefighting can make it more difficult to return-to-work. There was a variation in the experiences and understanding of return-to-work, as some firefighters were unaware of return-to-work procedures in their departments, while others had been through the return-to-work process for injuries they had sustained. Many reported facilitators for return-to-work were also reported as barriers in different contexts. For example, the availability of modified work allowed firefighters to return-to-work sooner and was seen as a facilitator by many firefighters, whereas some firefighters believed that the modified work lacked meaning, was not suitable, and acted as a barrier to returning to firefighting duties. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of knowledge of the return-to-work processes; thus, firefighters should have access to clear return-to-work policies and procedures. Firefighters require treatments that are targeted to firefighting duties to help recover from injuries and regain functional physical abilities after an injury. Firefighters must be fully recovered, as returning to work too soon due to personal and workplace pressures can lead to re-injury or injuries to others.
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».