Worker satisfaction with a workplace injury prevention and return-to-work program in a large Canadian hospital: The importance of an integrated approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workplace injuries cause considerable morbidity, requiring intervention programs with strong stakeholder support and effective interdisciplinary practitioner involvement. Such a program, called Prevention and Early Active Return-to-Work Safely (PEARS), decreased time loss and costs in a large Canadian hospital. However, it only attracted 39% of workers who reported injuries. This triggered a study of utilization and satisfaction with PEARS to determine areas to further enhance the program. METHODS: The hospital's occupational health department records identified 758 workers who reported a musculoskeletal injury (MSI) during the first year of PEARS, along with demographic and injury details. All were telephoned regardless of participation in the PEARS program. RESULTS: Of the 335 survey respondents, 136 had used PEARS. The most common reason justifying non-participation was perception of the injury as minor (45%). PEARS participants accessed significantly more resources than non-participants--cluding accessing physiotherapy (82.8% of participants versus 33.3% of non-participants) and physicians (74.8% versus 64.3%), and workplace assessments (37.9% versus 11.4%). Workplace assessment was the only component of the program that was perceived to be significantly more successful by PEARS participants (64.9%) versus non-participants (35.3%) (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: The fact that the only significant difference in satisfaction of services between those who accessed PEARS versus those who did not related to the workplace assessments underscores the value of proving workplace assessments in the context of an integrated approach to primary and secondary prevention, in which there is a direct link to knowledgeable medical and rehabilitation professionals who provide clinical advice that dovetails with the reality of the workplace setting. A program that emphasizes workplace assessment as an important complement to medical advice and physiotherapy is, therefore, advisable to decrease work disability.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".