Modifiable worker risk factors contributing to workplace absence: A stakeholder-centred best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A challenge facing stakeholders is the identification and translation of relevant high quality research to inform policy and practice. This study engaged academic and community stakeholders in conducting a best evidence-synthesis to identify modifiable risk and protective worker factors across health conditions impacting work-related absence. OBJECTIVES: To identify modifiable worker disability risk and protective factors across common health conditions impacting work-related absence. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CINHAL, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, BusinessSourceComplete, and ABI/Inform from 2000 to 2011. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods systematic reviews of work-focused population were considered for inclusion. Two or more reviewers independently reviewed articles for inclusion and methodological screening. RESULTS: The search strategy, expert input and grey literature identified 2,467 unique records. One hundred and forty-two full text articles underwent comprehensive review. Twenty-four systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. Modifiable worker factors found to have consistent evidence across two or more health conditions included emotional distress, negative enduring psychology/personality factors, negative health and disability perception, decreased physical activity, lack of family support, poor general health, increased functional disability, increased pain, increased fatigue and lack of motivation to return to work. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are limited by availability of high quality studies, lack of consistency of methodological screening and reporting, and variability of outcome measures used.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.298 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".