MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Employee Absenteeism Based on Occupational Health Visits in an Urban Tertiary Care Canadian Hospital

2008· article· en· W1482704533 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tara L. Donovan, Kieran Moore, Elizabeth G. VanDenKerkhof

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsAbsenteeismMedicinePublic healthHealth careOccupational safety and healthFamily medicineOccupational medicineEnvironmental healthNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) To merge Occupational Health (OH) and Human Resources (HR) administrative data to describe reasons for absenteeism among hospital employees and (2) to consider the advantages and disadvantages of using these combined data for surveillance of health care workers. This study utilized a retrospective cohort design, involving a record linkage of two administrative databases at a Canadian general hospital: OH and HR. Data were included for the period of June 1, 2004, to May 31, 2005. Data linkage was performed using sex, postal code, and date of birth. The most common self-reported reasons for absence were respiratory illness (31%), gastrointestinal illness (17%), and musculoskeletal injuries/disabilities (15%). Employees working in the Department of General Medicine experienced the highest number of times absent--1.9 per 1,000 work hours. The department with the highest percentage of staff not reporting to OH was General Medicine (43%). This research highlights the issue of absenteeism among health care workers and the need to improve reporting of illness and injury to OH for surveillance efficacy. Further, a public health surveillance system that monitors OH visits among health care workers can facilitate public health practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NursingSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207