Policy on professional support in return-to-work: Occupational health professionals’ experiences in a Canadian setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada and other countries, sickness-based absences among workers is an economic and sociological problem. Return-to-work (RTW) policy developed by both employer and worker' representatives (that is, bipartite policy) is preferred to tackle this problem. OBJECTIVE: The intent was to examine how this bipartite agreed-upon RTW policy works from the perspective of occupational health professionals (those who deliver RTW services to workers with temporary or permanent disabilities) in a public healthcare organization in Canada. METHODS: In-depth interviews were held with 9 occupational health professionals and transcribed verbatim. A qualitative, social constructivist, analysis was completed. RESULTS: The occupational health professionals experienced four main problems: 1) timing and content of physicians' medical advice cannot be trusted as a basis for RTW plans; 2) legal status of the plans and thus needing workers' consent and managers' approval can create tension, conflict and delays; 3) limited input and thus little fruitful inference in transdisciplinary meetings at the workplace; and yet 4) the professionals can be called to account for plans. CONCLUSIONS: Bipartite representation in developing RTW policy does not entirely delete bottlenecks in executing the policy. Occupational health professionals should be offered more influence and their professionalism needs to be enhanced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".