Key Factors in Back Disability Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Survey, subgroup analysis, Q-analysis, and analysis of e-mail exchanges. Objective. To assess what influences the choice of priorities for interventions to prevent back-related disability. Summary of Background Data. Back-related disability results from interaction of physical, psychological, occupational, and social factors. However, opinions differ on which factors should be targeted by interventions aimed at preventing disability. Methods. A Delphi panel (14 researchers and 19 occupational health stakeholders) attempted to reach consensus about the relative impact and modifiability of 32 factors involved in back-related disability. Data gathered during the panel were analyzed using 4 methods: (1) a survey asking panel members what influenced their rankings, (2) subgroup analysis to compare differences in rankings according to members’ backgrounds and affiliations, (3) Q-analysis to identify views shared by members, and (4) qualitative analysis of e-mail exchanges during the panel process. Results. Besides research evidence about a factor, we found that the greatest influence was the personal experience of panel members, which included diverse views about the nature of back disability, expectations about how interventions would be implemented, the typical workers or patients seen by them, and their values and principles. The member’s educational background and current affiliation played a lesser role in their choice of priorities. The choice of priorities was also influenced by difficulties in separating the impact of a factor from its modifiability, whether the panel member considered occupational or nonoccupational disability, and the intricate linkages between the factors. Conclusions. This study suggests the choice of priorities is primarily influenced by different views about disability and other components of personal experience. Secondary influences included process difficulties in making a choice. The person’s background and affiliation had a weak association with the views and choice of priorities. The authors analyzed data from a consensus panel in 4 ways to assess what influenced the choice of priorities for interventions to prevent back disability. The main influences related to different views about disability and other elements of personal experience. Secondary influences related to the prioritization process itself. There was a weak association between background and affiliation, and particular choices or views about 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 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 | 0.050 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".