The role of job strain on return to work after carpal tunnel surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine the impact of job strain (that is, high psychological job demands and low job control) on return to work and work role functioning at two months, six months, or both, following carpal tunnel release surgery. METHODS: A community based cohort of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) patients from physician practices was recruited between April 1997 and October 1998 throughout Maine (USA). 128 patients at two months and 122 at six months completed all relevant questions. A three level outcome variable indicated whether patients had: (1) returned to work functioning successfully, (2) returned to work functioning with limitations, or (3) not returned to work for health reasons. Two job strain measures were created: one, by combining psychological job demands and job control; and two, by dividing demands by control. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify predictors of the three level work outcome variable. RESULTS: After adjustment, workers with high demands and high control (active work) were less likely to successfully return to work (OR = 0.22; p = 0.014) at two months. Having a job with higher demands than job control (high strain) predicted not returning to work or returning to work but not successfully meeting job demands (OR = 0.14; p = 0.001), at six months. CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the role of psychosocial work conditions, as defined by the Karasek demand-control model, in explaining a worker's return to work. Clinicians, researchers, and employers should consider a multidimensional and integrative model of successful work role functioning upon return to work. Moreover, since the evidence of the effects of work process changes on the reduction of CTS is very scarce, these findings point to the opportunity for collaborative workplace interventions to facilitate successful return to work.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".