Expectancies mediate the relationship between perceived injustice and return to work following whiplash injury: A 1‐year prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that perceived injustice is a risk factor for work disability in individuals with whiplash injury. At present, however, little is known about the processes by which perceived injustice impacts on return to work. The purpose of this study was to examine whether expectancies mediated the relationship between perceived injustice and return to work in patients with whiplash injury. METHOD: One hundred and fifty-two individuals (81 men, 71 women) with a primary diagnosis of whiplash injury completed self-report measures of pain intensity, perceived injustice and return-to-work expectancies following admission to a rehabilitation programme. Work status was assessed 1 year after discharge. RESULTS: Consistent with previous research, high scores on a measure of perceived injustice were associated with prolonged work disability. Results indicated that high perceptions of injustice were associated with low return-to-work expectancies. Causal mediation analyses revealed that expectancies fully mediated the relationship between perceived injustice and return to work. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that intervention techniques designed to target expectancies could improve return-to-work outcomes in patients with whiplash injury. Discussion addresses the processes by which expectancies might impact on return-to-work outcomes and the manner in which negative return-to-work expectancies might be modified through intervention. SIGNIFICANCE: The study confirms that expectancies are the mechanism through which perceived injustice impacts return to work following whiplash injury. The findings suggest that interventions designed to specifically target return-to-work expectancies might improve rehabilitation outcomes in patients with whiplash injury.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".