MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577011823 · doi:10.1186/s13047-016-0185-y

Exploring musculoskeletal injuries in the podiatry profession: an international cross sectional study

2017· article· en· W2577011823 on OpenAlexafffund
Cylie Williams, Stefania Penkala, Peter Smith, Terry Haines, Kelly‐Ann Bowles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Foot and Ankle Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational health in dentistry
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPodiatristPodiatryMedicineCross-sectional studyPhysical therapyWorkforceOrthopedic surgeryFamily medicineAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Workplace injury is an international costly burden. Health care workers are an essential component to managing musculoskeletal disorders, however in doing this, they may increase their own susceptibility. While there is substantial evidence about work‐related musculoskeletal disorders across the health workforce, understanding risk factors in specific occupational groups, such as podiatry, is limited. The primary aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and intensity of work related low back pain in podiatrists. Methods This was an international cross‐sectional survey targeting podiatrists in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The survey had two components; general demographic variables and variables relating to general musculoskeletal pain in general or podiatry work‐related musculoskeletal pain. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with musculoskeletal stiffness and pain and low back pain intensity. Thematic analysis was used to group comments podiatrists made about their musculoskeletal health. Results There were 948 survey responses (5% of Australian, New Zealand and United Kingdom registered podiatrists). There were 719 (76%) podiatrists reporting musculoskeletal pain as a result of their work practices throughout their career. The majority of injuries reported were in the first five years of practice (n = 320, 45%). The body area reported as being the location of the most significant injury was the low back (203 of 705 responses, 29%). Being female (p < 0.001) and working in private practice (p = 0.003) was associated with musculoskeletal pain or stiffness in the past 12 months. There were no variables associated with pain or stiffness in the past four weeks. Being female was the only variable associated with higher pain (p = 0.018). There were four main themes to workplace musculoskeletal pain: 1. Organisational and procedural responses to injury, 2. Giving up work, taking time off, reducing hours, 3. Maintaining good musculoskeletal health and 4. Environmental change. Conclusions The postures that podiatrists hold while treating patients appear to impact on musculoskeletal pain and stiffness. Recently graduated and female podiatrists are at higher risk of injury. There is a need for the profession to consider how they move and take care of their own musculoskeletal health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.546
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.100 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Foot and Ankle ResearchSame topicOccupational health in dentistryFrench-language works237,207