Determinants of return to work following non life threatening acute orthopaedic trauma: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with return to work following acute non-life-threatening orthopaedic trauma. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and sixty-eight participants were recruited and followed for 6 months. The study achieved 89% participant follow-up. METHODS: Baseline data were obtained by survey and medical record review. Participants were further surveyed at 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months post-injury. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between potential predictors and first return to work by these 3 time-points. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of participants returned to work within 6 months. Those who sustained isolated upper extremity injuries were more likely to return to work early. Significant positive determinants of return to work included a strong belief in recovery, the presence of an isolated injury, education to university level and self-employment. Determinants associated with non-return to work included the receipt of compensation, older age, pain attitudes and blue-collar work. The primary reason given for return to work was financial security. CONCLUSION: Demographic, injury, occupation and psychosocial factors were significant predictors of return to work. The relative importance of factors at different time-points suggests that return to work is a multifactorial process that involves the complex interaction of many factors in a time-dependent manner.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".