A scoping review of the knowledge base in WORK that addresses work related outcomes for individuals with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain such as arthritis has a significant impact on occupational performance in the workplace that contributes to decreased productivity, reduced rates of employment, personal and societal economic costs. In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of WORK, a scoping review was conducted to understand the knowledge base on chronic pain. The purpose of this was to examine and describe WORK's contribution to the literature relevant for rehabilitation professionals such as occupational therapists to improve work related outcomes for persons experiencing chronic pain. METHOD: The method employed the use of historical, citation and dimension analyses of assessment and intervention articles. RESULTS: Of the 30 articles identified in WORK, the historical analysis of their scope indicated an international representation of authors and a greater emphasis on quantitative study designs. The citation analysis revealed that the articles in WORK drew heavily on medical literature to inform their studies. The dimensional analysis of the assessment and intervention articles applied an occupational lens of self-care, productivity and leisure, to draw upon the Occupational Competence Model and identified that the majority of papers focused on 2 or more dimensions of the person, environment and occupation. CONCLUSIONS: WORK has contributed to the knowledge base of assessment and intervention approaches that inform work rehabilitation strategies for individuals with chronic pain. To advance its knowledge base for the rehabilitation and management of chronic pain, WORK is encouraged to include more prevention and multidimensional interventions articles, as well as articles that contain multidimensional assessment tools that address both clinical and outcome assessments of chronic pain. Additionally internal dialogue should be encouraged within WORK so that new authors build on previous submissions and increase the impact and quality of research on chronic pain as it pertains to work.
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 | 0.029 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".