Return to work helps maintain treatment gains in the rehabilitation of whiplash injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relation between return to work and the maintenance of treatment gains made over the course of a rehabilitation intervention. The study sample consisted of 110 individuals who had sustained whiplash injuries in rear collision motor vehicle accidents and were work-disabled at the time of enrolment in the study. Participants completed pre- and post-treatment measures of pain severity, disability, cervical range of motion, depression, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and catastrophizing. Pain severity was assessed again at 1-year follow-up. At 1-year follow-up, 73 participants had returned to work and 37 remained work-disabled. Analyses revealed that participants who returned to work were more likely to maintain treatment gains (77.5%) than participants who remained work-disabled (48%), χ = 6.3, P < 0.01. The results of a regression analysis revealed that the relation between return to work and the maintenance of treatment gains remained significant (β = 0.30, P < 0.01), even when controlling for potential confounders such as pain severity, restricted range of motion, depression, and pain catastrophizing. The Discussion addresses the processes by which prolonged work-disability might contribute to the failure to maintain treatment gains. Important knowledge gaps still remain concerning the individual, workplace, and system variables that might play a role in whether or not the gains made in the rehabilitation of whiplash injury are maintained. Clinical implications of the findings are also addressed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".