Health-care barriers for workers with HAVS in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) becomes irreversible unless it is identified early and progression prevented. AIMS: To describe the health-care-seeking behaviours of workers with HAVS and barriers to health care. METHODS: We invited all patients assessed for HAVS between 15 January and 27 March 2013 at a hospital-based occupational health clinic (OHC) in Ontario, Canada, to complete a questionnaire asking why and from whom they sought health care, reasons they waited to seek care and barriers they encountered in accessing care. We analysed the data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Forty-one (82%) patients agreed to participate. Thirty-seven had confirmed HAVS; 30 (84%) were Stockholm workshop vascular stage 2 or greater and 35 (97%) were sensorineural stage 1 or greater. The commonest employment sectors were construction [21 (57%)] and mining [6 (17%)]. The main reasons for seeking treatment were pain [11 (30%)], finger numbness [8 (22%)] and functional limitations [5 (14%)]. The commonest initial point of health care was the family physician [23 (66%)]. The mean wait between symptom onset and seeking treatment was 3.4 years, while the mean time between onset and OHC assessment was 9 years. Reasons for delay in seeking care were ignorance of the seriousness and irreversibility of HAVS and ability to continue to work. Family physicians suspected HAVS in 17% of cases and recommended job modification in 34%. CONCLUSIONS: Workers with HAVS in Ontario delay seeking health care. Primary care physicians often fail to recognize HAVS. Barriers to health care include ignorance of HAVS and of the importance of prevention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".