Advancing knowledge in work-related rehabilitation – Review of research published in the journal of WORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many studies published in the journal WORK in the recent decades have discussed work and employment trends. However, the dimensions of these contributions over time have not been reviewed. The main objective of this study was to investigate the knowledge development in regard to work-related rehabilitation in WORK over the last two decades. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using the following five stages: (i) identifying research question, (ii) identifying relevant studies, (iii) study selection, (iv) charting, summarizing, and collating the data, and (v) reporting the results. Studies were selected from the WORK ARTicle Database. RESULTS: Seventy-five relevant studies were identified. The findings reflect that WORK has published papers from across the world, with most of the studies from the United States, Sweden, Canada, and Hong Kong. The complexity and multi-factorial nature of work-related rehabilitation was reflected in the application of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research approaches, as well as case studies. Study participants were characterized by work, and non-work related injuries, systematic diseases/chronic illness, fulfilled certain socio-demographic characteristic, and represented various stakeholders. Fewer studies drew on secondary resources. In the findings one re-occurring theme has been noted: 'maintaining/obtaining/returning to secure and stable employment/work'. CONCLUSIONS: Four key-reflections evolved from this scoping review that provide potential avenues for future research. These key-reflections include (i) the national, transnational and international dimension of the reviewed studies, (ii) the various societal levels informing work-related rehabilitation practices, (iii) the diversity of methodologies applied in current research, and (iv) the variability of terminology used within the reviewed studies. The journal WORK has published a variety of research over the last two decades and contributed significantly to our current understanding of work-related rehabilitation. However, further research in these reflective areas would expand the current knowledge base.
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 | 0.024 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".