Differences in lumbopelvic control and occupational behaviours in female nurses with and without a recent history of low back pain due to back injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low back pain is highly prevalent in nurses. This study aimed to determine which physical fitness, physical activity (PA) and biomechanical characteristics most clearly distinguish between nurses with [recently injured (RInj)] and without [not recently injured (NRInj)] a recent back injury. Twenty-seven (8 RInj, 19 NRInj) female nurses completed questionnaires (pain, work, PA), physical fitness, biomechanical and low back discomfort measures, and wore an accelerometer for one work shift. Relative to NRInj nurses, RInj nurses exhibited reduced lumbopelvic control (41.4% more displayed a moderate loss of frontal plane position), less active occupational behaviours (less moderate PA; less patient lifts performed alone; more sitting and less standing time) and more than two times higher low back discomfort scores. Despite no physical fitness differences, the lumbopelvic control, occupational behaviours and discomfort measures differed between nurses with and without recent back injuries. It is unclear whether poor lumbopelvic control is causal or adaptive in RInj nurses and may require further investigation. Practitioner Summary: It is unclear which personal modifiable factors are most clearly associated with low back pain in nurses. Lumbopelvic control was the only performance-based measure to distinguish between nurses with and without recent back injuries. Future research may investigate whether reduced lumbopelvic control is causal or adaptive in recently injured nurses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".