0394 Are gender differences in disability duration for work-related musculoskeletal injuries explained by health care utilisation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In British Columbia, Canada, women have longer work disability durations for musculoskeletal injuries than men, even after adjustment for confounders. This study investigated if different types of health care utilisation in the first four weeks of injury explain differences in disability duration. Methods Three cohorts were identified from compensation claims for back strain, limb fractures and connective tissue injuries. Claims were restricted to at least four-weeks disability for a standard health care utilisation window. Quantile regression investigated the effect of physician visits (log count), physical therapies and prescriptions (yes/no), on disability days (censored at 365) at the 25th, 50thand 75th percentile by gender. Results In multivariable models, physician visits were associated with shorter disability durations for both genders across injury cohorts. For example, for connective tissue injuries, an increase of one physician visit was associated with 44 fewer days [95% CI-64.8,–23.9] for women and 56 fewer days for men [−74.2,–37.5], at the 75th percentile. Opiate prescriptions were associated with longer disability durations for factures only, with 39 more days [95% CI 16.1, 61.3] for women and 46 more days [32.1, 59.3] for men, at the 75th percentile. The effect of physical therapies varied by injury and gender. Discussion Physician visits in the first weeks of a compensation claim may be part of return-to-work procedures associated with shorter disability. Opiate prescriptions in the first weeks of a fracture may be a measure of severity associated with longer disability. Health care utilisation did not readily explain longer disability durations for women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".