The association between rurality and return to work for workers’ compensation claimants with work-related musculoskeletal injuries: An analysis of workers who failed to return to work within typical healing time frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study have been to: 1) describe and compare urban and rural injured worker populations in Alberta, Canada; 2) identify return-to-work outcomes in urban and rural populations; 3) examine the relationship between geographic location of residence and recovery from work-related musculoskeletal injury; and 4) investigate if this relationship is attenuated after controlling for other known risk factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis utilizing data of a population of musculoskeletal injury claimants who underwent clinical/RTW (return to work) assessment between December 2009 and January 2011 collected by the Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta. Descriptive statistics were computed for 32 variables and used for comparing urban and rural workers. The logistic regression analysis was performed to test the association between geographic location of residence and likelihood of return-to-work. RESULTS: Data on 7843 claimants was included, 70.1% of them being urban and 29.9% - rural. Rural claimants tended to have spent less time in formal education, have a blue-collar job, have no modified work available, have a diagnosed comorbidity, and not been enrolled in a specialized rehabilitation program. They were 1.43 (1.12-1.84) times the odds more likely than urban claimants to be continuing to receive full disability benefits 90 days after their RTW assessment, and 1.68 (1.06-2.67) times the odds as likely to report a recurrence of receiving disability benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Rural residence was associated with prolonged work disability, even after controlling for age, job type, education level, health utilization and other potential confounders. Further research is required to explore why injured workers in rural settings experience prolonged reception of disability benefits and have greater rates of recurrence of receiving disability benefits. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2017;30(5):715-729.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".