A critical review of gender issues in understanding prolonged disability related to musculoskeletal pain: how are they relevant to rehabilitation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".