Return to work after occupational injury. Family physicians' perspectives on soft-tissue injuries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document physicians' views about facilitating factors for and barriers to their helping workers recover after occupational soft-tissue injuries and to ascertain physicians' knowledge and attitudinal barriers to their involvement in return to work. DESIGN: Faxed survey. SETTING: Manitoba family practices and emergency departments. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners, family physicians, and emergency physicians regularly caring for injured workers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' ranking of facilitating factors and barriers, changes to help their involvement in return to work, and their attitudes and knowledge about return to work. RESULTS: Respondents and nonrespondents were demographically similar, 232 physicians (51.3%) responded. Respondents believed the main facilitating factors were physicians' ability to explain the nature and prognosis of injuries to workers (69%) and the willingness of workplaces to accommodate injured workers (26%). The main barriers were workers' misunderstandings and fears about their injuries (70.7%) and non-supportive supervisors and co-workers (20.8%). The most frequently requested change was better workplace job accommodation (48%). Most physicians agreed they had a role in planning return to work and were aware of the effect of job satisfaction, psychosocial elements, and work-related factors. Despite supporting evidence, only one third of physicians stated they would say "try to continue usual activities" to patients with occupational low back pain. CONCLUSION: Most physicians seemed aware of their role in return to work and the effect of occupational factors, but their advice on activity after injury differed from that in practice guidelines.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".