Factors associated with the duration of disability benefits claims among Canadian workers: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disability insurance protects workers from total loss of income in case of a disabling injury or illness by providing wage-replacement benefits. To better inform early identification of claims at risk of prolonged recovery, we explored predictors of the duration of disability benefits claims. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using claims data provided by SSQ Life Insurance Company Inc., a private Canadian disability insurer. We examined all claims SSQ approved for short- and long-term disability benefits from Jan. 1, 2007, to Mar. 31, 2014, and evaluated the association between 9 variables and duration of short- and long-term disability benefits using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: = 22 205) claims, and across all disorders, older age, female sex, heavy job demands, presence of comorbidity, attending an independent medical evaluation, receipt of rehabilitation therapy and longer time to claim approval were associated with longer claim duration. Higher predisability salary was associated with longer short-term disability claim duration. Quebec residency was associated with longer short-term disability claim duration among workers with psychological disorders, but shorter short-term disability claim duration among those with musculoskeletal complaints and other illnesses. For long-term disability claims, however, residing in Quebec was associated with shorter claim duration, although the size of the association differed across clinical conditions. INTERPRETATION: The factors we found to be associated with the duration of short- and long-term disability claims may be helpful to identify claims at risk of prolonged recovery. Our study has limitations, however, and well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings and identify other promising predictors.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".