From Evidence to Community Practice in Work Rehabilitation: The Quebec Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The causes of prolonged disability due to back pain are multiply determined, involving medical, social, and environmental factors. Possible solutions to the problem of prolonged back pain disability have emerged from recent research but few efforts have been made to transfer evidence-based programs to large community settings. OBJECTIVE: This article describes three phases of the process of transfer of evidence from rehabilitation research to community practice in the province of Quebec. METHODS AND RESULTS: Phase A: Based on literature review and expert knowledge, the Sherbrooke model was developed and assessed through a population-based, randomized clinical trial. Results at 1-year follow-up showed quicker return to regular work and improvement of quality of life; the 6-year follow-up showed the cost-effectiveness of the method. Phase B: Based on the Sherbrooke model experience and recent evidence, a new program addressing the disability paradigm was developed and implemented in the province of Quebec (Canada). Results at 1- and 3-year follow-ups showed that only 24% of workers were not working owing to their musculoskeletal disorder. The program is presently being tested through a population-based, randomized clinical trial in a population of construction workers. Phase C: To implement the program at a provincial level, a network for management, research and education in work rehabilitation was developed. An external assessment is presently planned to evaluate return to work and economic outcomes and quality of implementation of the program in various settings.
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 | 0.022 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".