Key Factors in Back Disability Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Modified Delphi panel using Q-methodology. Objective. To reach consensus on the relative impact and modifiability of factors that might prevent participation restrictions in people with back pain as defined by the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Summary of Background Data. Back disability prevention should focus on factors with large impact that are relatively easy to change and supported by most stakeholders. An evidence-based consensus panel can provide interim direction until definitive evidence is available. Methods. Evidence summaries for 32 factors were used by 33 researchers and stakeholders in a 3-round Delphi process to rank the factors’ relative impact and modifiability. Consensus was judged as strong (>85% of panel members), moderate (50%–84%), or low (33%–49%). Results. Most available research focused on return to work and often left unexplored other participation domains and environmental factors at home. The panel had substantial disagreements, particularly on the impact of changes to physical functioning and activities required at work. After 3 rounds, there was strong consensus that care provider reassurance had a high impact. There was moderate consensus that expectation of recovery and decreased fears had a high impact. Back supports, care provider reassurance, and patient knowledge were deemed most modifiable. Conclusions. Until definitive evidence is available, back disability prevention interventions will likely need to address multiple factors simultaneously and emphasize efforts to improve care provider reassurance. Consensus findings may vary depending on the panel. Research on nonoccupational participation, environmental factors at home, and reasons for discordant interpretation of evidence is needed. The authors summarized published evidence on factors that may prevent back pain disability and asked experts to agree on their relative impact and modifiability. The evidence had important gaps and there was substantial disagreement suggesting that consensus findings may vary with panel composition. Eventually, the majority agreed Care Provider Reassurance had top impact and modifiability.
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 | 0.085 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".