A Life Course Perspective to Spinal Cord Injury and Employment Participation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined life course differences in the employment of Canadians with spinal cord injury (SCI). OBJECTIVE: To compare employment participation of young/middle-aged and older adults with SCI and to examine the association between employment and demographic and health factors, SCI-related needs, and social role participation at the 2 life phases. METHODS: A sample of young/middle-aged (18-54 years; n = 959) and older adults (55-64 years; n = 364) with SCI was recruited as part of a larger Canadian community survey. Pre- and postinjury employment were compared. Demographic and health factors, number of unmet SCI needs, and social role participation were collected and compared by life phase and employment status. Two multivariable logistic regression models were conducted and compared for young/middle-aged and older adults. RESULTS: Close to one-third of participants with SCI were working post injury (32%), a decline from the 62% of respondents working prior to their injury. Participants were more likely to work in less physically demanding job sectors including business/administration or health/science/teaching. An examination of life phase differences showed that young/middle-aged adults were more likely to be employed post injury (36%) when compared to older respondents (12% employed) who were more likely to report being retired (43%). Multivariable analyses revealed that for young/middle-aged adults, being married, attaining a postsecondary education, and having fewer unmet SCI needs were related to employment. Among older adults, having a traumatic injury was related to involvement in paid work. For both young/middle-aged and older adults, participating in more social roles was related to working. CONCLUSION: A life course perspective is important to understanding similarities and differences between young/middle-aged and older adults with SCI in their employment participation. Tailored programs and policies should be designed to promote labor force involvement at different phases of the working life course.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".