The treating physicians experiences of the return to work process in Thunder Bay
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study explored the experiences of physicians who treat injured workers (treating physicians) and are responsible for providing information to employers and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding an injured worker?s ability to return to work (RTW) following a workplace injury. This study specifically examined the factors that these treating physicians perceived as influential within the RTW process. \nSemistructured, face-to-face interviews were conducted during the early part of 2009 with nine general practitioners, four specialists (orthopaedic surgeons) and one physician with expertise in the field of disability management. Interviews were conducted with each treating physician individually in their clinical office. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the findings from these interviews. \nThe treating physicians identified several factors that I categorized into micro, meso, and macro level factors. At the micro level, the role of the treating physician and the treating physician?s view of an injured worker?s motivation to return to work and the perception of safe return-to-work emerged as important themes. At the meso level, communication as an overall theme with the frequency of communication, broken telephone syndrome, and facilitated return-to-work coordination as subthemes emerged. Further, at the macro level, the treating physicians revealed that the WSIB process, the social environment of the workplace, and the availability of health care services influenced their experiences with the RTW process and the medical management of the injured workers. \nThe treating physicians in this study described many challenges to medically managing injured workers following an occupational injury. Improvements were recommended in areas of physician remuneration, stakeholder collaboration, communication between parties, and facilitation of the RTW process. This study was the first of its kind to interview the treating physicians in a northern Ontario setting. Further research is needed to better understand the experiences of other stakeholders, including injured workers and other health care providers during the RTW process.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| 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 | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».