Return to work after work-related traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work-related traumatic brain injury (wrTBI) comprises up to 24% of TBIs, yet relatively little is known about it even though wrTBI incurs high costs to employers, insurers, and injured. OBJECTIVES: To compare demographic, clinical, and occupation-related factors following mild-to-moderate TBI of those who successfully returned to work (RTW) versus those who did not, and to determine perceived facilitators of and barriers to RTW. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study from a consecutive sample of persons with TBI seen in an outpatient assessment clinic. Surveys were mailed to eligible potential participants. Consenting participants were interviewed by telephone or returned a completed survey via mail. RESULTS: Fifty of 116 eligible individuals participated in the study. Half of the participants returned to work. Participants in this group were significantly younger and had more years of education than the no-RTW group. The most common factors perceived to assist the RTW group were support of family and friends (92%) and of treatment providers (80%), and employers who provided accommodations (76%). Difficulty thinking and concentrating (94%) and fatigue (94%) were the most common barriers to RTW. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of support from family, friends and employers as RTW facilitators. These factors merit further investigation in TBI rehabilitation studies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".