A telephonic intervention for promoting occupational re-integration in work-disabled individuals with musculoskeletal pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present research was to examine the feasibility of a telephonic occupational rehabilitation program. A sample of 23 individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain was enrolled in the telephonic version of the Progressive Goal Attainment Program (PGAP-Tel). The PGAP-Tel is a risk-targeted intervention designed to reduce pain-related disability consequent to musculoskeletal injury. Treatment outcomes of PGAP-Tel were compared to a group of individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain, who participated in the face-to-face format of the PGAP. Results showed that PGAP-Tel was acceptable to the majority of participants (76%) to whom it was offered. There were indications that engagement and adherence issues were more problematic in PGAP-Tel than in the face-to-face intervention. Both groups showed comparable reductions in pain, depression, fear of symptom exacerbation, and self-reported disability. Participants in the face-to-face intervention showed greater reduction in catastrophic thinking than participants in PGAP-Tel. Finally, 26% of participants in PGAP-Tel had resumed some form of employment at treatment termination compared to 56% of the participants in the face-to-face intervention. Given the low cost of the PGAP-Tel intervention and the accessibility advantages of a telephonic delivery, this type of intervention might be an important resource for targeting occupational disability in rural or remote communities when face-to-face services are not available.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it