Prevalence and Correlates of Low Back Pain among Occupational Therapy Students in Northern Queensland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although low back pain (LBP) is an important issue for the health profession, few studies have examined LBP among occupational therapy students. PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence and distribution of LBP, its adverse sequelae; and to identify potential risk factors. METHODS: In 2005, a self-reported questionnaire was administered to occupational therapy students in Northern Queensland. FINDINGS: The 72-month period-prevalence of LBP was 64.6%. Nearly half (46.9%) had experienced pain for over 2 days, 38.8% suffered LBP that affected their daily lives, and 24.5% had sought medical treatment. The prevalence of LBP ranged from 45.5 to 77.1% (p = 0.004), while the prevalence of LBP symptoms persisting longer than two days was 34.1 to 62.5% (p = 0.020). Logistic regression analysis indicated that year of study and weekly computer usage were statistically-significant LBP risk factors. IMPLICATIONS: The occupational therapy profession will need to further investigate the high prevalence of student LBP identified in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".