Effectiveness of workplace rehabilitation interventions in the treatment of work-related low back pain: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace rehabilitation interventions for injured workers with low back pain (LBP). METHOD: MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EMBASE, and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) were searched from 1982 to 2005 for peer-reviewed studies of rehabilitation interventions that were provided at the workplace to workers with musculoskeletal work-related LBP. Methodological quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by five reviewers. RESULTS: Of a total of 1,224 articles that were identified by the search, 15 articles, consisting of 10 studies, were of sufficient quality to be included in the review. The best evidence was that clinical interventions with occupational interventions as well as early return to work/modified work interventions were effective in returning workers to work faster, reducing pain and disability, and decreasing the rate of back injuries. Ergonomic interventions also were found to be effective workplace interventions. CONCLUSION: The need for further research in this area is necessary to reduce the burden of back pain on employees and their families, employers, and the health care system.
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".