MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981790098 · doi:10.3109/09638280903026572

A critical review of gender issues in understanding prolonged disability related to musculoskeletal pain: how are they relevant to rehabilitation?

2009· review· en· W1981790098 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Côté, Marie‐France Coutu

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationMEDLINEDistrustPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyClinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this critical review is to describe the available theoretical models for understanding the gender issues in prolonged work disability related to persistent musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. METHOD: A critical literature review was conducted in medicine, health sciences, and social sciences databases (MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsychINFO and SOCINDEX) using specific keywords. After screening titles and abstracts, followed by methodological quality assessment, a total of 55 references were retained for content analysis. RESULTS: Gender issues in disability related to persistent MSK pain show that men and women may experience pain and rehabilitation process in different ways. Three main themes were exftracted and further described: (1) the experience of distrust; (2) the self-identity process; and (3) the domestic strain. Each of these themes has a specific and potentially different impact on men and women, and we report that experiential differences may strongly impact the rehabilitation process and outcomes such as return to work. CONCLUSIONS: This critical review provides insight into gender issues in the process of rehabilitation and outcomes such as return to work. We suggest that work and family considerations are the two most important issues in the rehabilitation process and that differences between men and women are likely to occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207