Investigating Risk Factors for Chronicity: The Importance of Distinguishing Between Return-to-Work Status and Self-Report Measures of Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether the outcome of psychosocial risk factor analyses varied as a function of whether the outcome variable was return-to-work status or self-reported functional disability. METHODS: Participants were 255 workers who sustained a soft tissue injury to the back and participated in a community-based secondary prevention program. Assessment of psychologic risk factors (pain severity, pain catastrophizing, fear of movement/reinjury, depression) was conducted at pretreatment. RESULTS: Logistic regression revealed that pain catastrophizing (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.32-0.88) and pain severity (OR, 0.65; 95% CI = 0.45-0.94) were significant predictors of return to work. However, when change in self-reported disability was used as the outcome variable, none of the psychosocial risk factors emerged as significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Given the important theoretical, clinical, and policy implications of the outcome of risk factor research, more research is needed to further clarify the respective advantages and limitations to using self-reported versus return to work-based measures of disability.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".