Work remains meaningful despite time out of the workplace and chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although work has been found to be meaningful and a source of motivation to return to work in certain disabled populations, it was unclear if this was also true for people experiencing a long period of unemployment and job loss due to a musculoskeletal injury. Therefore, the aim of this phenomenological study was to explore the meaning of work for those with chronic work disability due to a musculoskeletal injury. METHOD: The data from 27 interviews, conducted with 9 participants, was analyzed using the Empirical Phenomenological Psychological method. RESULTS: Work remained central to the lives of the participants and aligned with previous valued work outcomes and goals regardless of the amount of time away from work. These findings point to the importance of recognizing the ongoing centrality of work for those with chronic work disability and the importance of tapping into work values and beliefs to provide workers with the motivation needed to get past physical and systemic barriers to return to work. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a shift in focus back to meaning not only has benefits for people with chronic work disability, but for occupational therapists in their ability to make a unique and effective contribution to the field of work disability. Implications for rehabilitation The chronic work disabled population remains one of the most challenging to return to work. Reflection on the meaning of work provides motivation needed for clients to overcome barriers to work including chronic pain. Exploring meaning is not difficult or time consuming in vocational rehabilitation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".