Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF STUDY: * To examine whether early nurse contacts influenced workers' satisfaction with their nurse case management, their healthcare, and the way the firm was treating their injury.* To examine whether early nurse contacts influenced self-reported measures of back pain and returns to work. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING(S): Workers with low back pain resulting in workers' compensation claims. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: To quantify the influence of nurse case management on workers' satisfaction with their treatment by the firm and their healthcare provider, as well return to work, we follow 747 Marriott workers with incident episodes of low back pain in a prospective analysis. Predictors of outcomes include demographics, injury severity, and the timing of nurse case manager and work supervisor contacts. RESULTS: While early contacts do not have much impact on satisfaction with the treatment by the healthcare provider, early nurse case management contacts improve worker satisfaction with the firm's treatment of their claim, increasing satisfaction by 0.5 standard deviations (on a 4-point scale). The change in odds ratio with respect to a contact during the first week after injury is 8, indicating a 50-percentage point increase in the likelihood of continual employment. IMPLICATIONS FOR CM PRACTICE: *Among workers with low back pain, early nurse case management contacts improved workers' satisfaction with their healthcare provider and their treatment by the firm.* Contacts made during the first week after the injury were most valuable, but in our sample it did not matter when during that first week the contact was made (as long as it was within the first week).* Early nurse case management contacts substantially improved the odds of continual employment, dominating the influence of age, job satisfaction, and the expectation of a good 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".