Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE: To better understand social influences on work recovery, we studied the association between work status, work adjustment (WA), job demands, and social support (employer, family, physician) for return to work in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) patients. METHODS: Multiple cross-sectional design with questionnaire data collected from patients (72% working; age = 57 ± 10.7 years) either at program entry (n = 126) or 6 to 12 months (n = 88) of CR exposure. Work adjustment was assessed by utilizing a visual analogue scale (WA VAS). Perceived social support from the employer, family, and physician was assessed using 5-point Likert scales. Physical demands (PD) and psychological job demands, and job control, were assessed utilizing the Job Content Questionnaire. RESULTS: Working patients expressed higher levels of employer support (4.2 ± 1.2 vs 3.6 ± 1.4, P < .04) and lower PD (7.9 ± 3.4 vs 10.5 ± 4.0, P < .001) than those not working. Employer support was positively correlated with WA VAS (R = 0.34, P < .002). High PD were negatively correlated with WA VAS (R = −0.31, P < .002). Weaker relationships were observed between family support and physician support and the dependent measures. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that CR patients view their employer as a significant source of social support for return to work. Efforts to foster support from employers are an important consideration for the functional rehabilitation of these workers. The nature of the supportive relationship requires further investigation to determine the salient aspects that impact on work adjustment. We studied the influence of social support and work characteristics on work adjustment among cardiac rehabilitation patients. Employer support, physical work demands, and job control had the strongest relationship to work adjustment. Staff should consider influences outside of the context of the clinic when developing return to work programs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".