Psychosocial job factors and the one-year evolution of back-related functional limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This 1-year prospective study aimed at assessing the association between some psychosocial job characteristics and back-related functional limitations. METHODS: The participants were 849 workers who sought medical consultation for nonspecific back pain in primary care settings of the Quebec City area. Information on job decision latitude, psychological demands, and social support at work was collected during a telephone interview conducted after the medical consultation. Back-related functional limitations were measured at baseline and 1 year later with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. The analyses were stratified by gender. Social support at work and the type of back pain were considered potential effect modifiers. Several potential confounders were also considered in the multiple regression analyses that were conducted to isolate the effect of the job psychological demands and decision latitude on the 1-year level of back-related functional limitations. RESULTS: A modest difference in the 1-year Roland-Morris average scores was found only among the women and only for the association between job decision latitude with back-related functional limitations, according to the level of social support at work. This difference was of limited clinical significance. Analyses by type of back pain showed, however, a clinically significant association between the combination of high psychological demands and low decision latitude and back-related functional limitations only for subjects with persistent pain. CONCLUSIONS: Job psychological demands and decision latitude have little influence on the 1-year evolution of back-related functional limitations for one-time and recurrent back-pain problems. However, our results suggest that this association could be important for workers with persistent pain.
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".