The Incidence of Upper Extremity Injuries in Canadian Endoscopy Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work-related musculoskeletal injuries occur at an epidemic rate in Canada. Many thousands of workers are temporarily or permanently removed from the workforce annually because of this type of injury. Workers who are most susceptible to this type of injury are those who perform physical, repetitive work involving sustained activity in awkward positions and cramped environments. Workers in the healthcare sector experience one of the highest rates of this type of injury annually. Injury prevention programs are being developed and instituted by government agencies and employers in an attempt to reduce the frequency of occurrence of this type of injury. In spite of attempts to prevent these injuries, musculoskeletal injuries of the upper extremity, neck, and back continue to occur in healthcare workers including nurses. Endoscopy nurses experience upper extremity injuries at work. The purpose of this study was to explore whether the occurrence of upper extremity injuries is common in this population of nurses and to identify factors that may be associated with these injuries. Results reveal that for this sample of Canadian nurses, older endoscopy nurses are at greater risk of injury. Nurses with injuries tended to self-prescribe treatment of their injuries. They also took anti-inflammatory medications and painkillers for their symptoms and saw their doctors for their conditions. Physiotherapist involvement was not common. Thirty-two percent of the endoscopy nurses in this study missed work because of upper extremity pain. Considering the number of nurses working in Canada, this percentage suggests a significant number of sick days, indicating a cause for concern, exploration, and further prevention measures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".