Disability management practices in Ontario workplaces: Employees' perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to obtain employees' perceptions about disability management (DM) at their workplaces. METHODS: Data were obtained from focus group interviews and individual telephone interviews with 58 employees who had sustained a work-related injury or disability in Ontario, Canada. Participants also completed a 22-item Organizational Policies and Practices (OPP) Questionnaire that asked questions about workplace DM practices. RESULTS: Respondents emphasized the need for job accommodation, the importance of open and clear communication and the necessity of job retraining. The provision of ergonomic modifications to their worksites and the development of meaningful and specific DM policies and procedures were seen as key to a comprehensive workplace DM program. Education about health and safety also was identified as an important component of creating a supportive workplace environment. The OPP questionnaire showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.95) and discriminant validity. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the importance of workplaces communicating with their employees and respecting their opinions when establishing and carrying out DM policies and practices. The OPP Questionnaire is useful in determining how DM is managed in the workplace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".