Listening to injured workers: how recovery expectations predict outcomes--a prospective study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rigorous evidence on factors affecting the prognosis of work-related soft-tissue injuries remains limited. Although shown to be important for a wide variety of clinical conditions, recovery expectations have rarely been assessed as prognostic factors for workers with soft-tissue injuries. We examined the predictive role of various measures of recovery expectations among workers with injuries resulting in time off work. METHODS: We identified a prospective cohort of 1566 injured workers shortly after they filed a claim for their injury with the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board (OWCB). They had soft-tissue injuries to the back or upper or lower extremities, had new, lost-time claims from May to November 1993 and were still off work at the time of the first interview. We interviewed participants by telephone within 3 weeks after the injury and measured their recovery expectations (perceptions regarding progress, expected change in condition, expected time until return to usual activities and expectations regarding return to usual job) along with other, potentially important prognostic factors. The primary outcome was total time receiving 100% wage-replacement benefits during the year following injury, obtained from OWCB administrative files. Self-reported measures of pain, health-related quality of life and functional status, obtained up to 4 times during the year following injury, were both independent predictors and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The 4 measures of recovery expectations together explained one-sixth of the variation in time receiving benefits. All but expectations regarding return to usual job were individually predictive of time receiving benefits. Judging one's recovery as much better than expected resulted in a 30% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9%-46%) faster rate of stopping receiving benefits (and likely returning to work) compared with judging one's recovery as much worse than expected. Similarly, participants who expected to return to usual activities within 3 weeks had a 37% (95% CI 26%-47%) faster rate of stopping receiving benefits than those who responded "Don't know" to this question, and participants who stated that they were fully recovered or would get better soon had a 25% (CI 5%-40%) faster rate than those who thought they would never get or stay better. Positive recovery expectations were also associated with reductions in pain grade and improvement in functional status outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Expectations regarding recovery may provide useful information on the complex process of recovering from work-related soft-tissue injuries. For clinicians, patients' negative or uncertain expectations may indicate the need for further probing and intervention on psychosocial factors to facilitate recovery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".