Cognitive work hardening for return to work following depression: An intervention study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work absences due to depression are prevalent; however, few interventions exist to address the return-to-work challenges following a depressive episode. PURPOSE: This mixed-methods study aimed to (a) evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive work hardening in preparing people with depression to return to work and (b) identify key elements of the intervention. METHOD: A single group ( n = 21) pretest-posttest study design was used incorporating self-report measures (Work Ability Index, Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, Beck Depression Inventory II) with interviews at intervention completion and at 3-month follow-up. Descriptive statistics, paired-samples t test, and content analysis were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: Work ability, fatigue, and depression severity significantly improved postintervention. Participants identified structure, work simulations, realism of simulated work environment, support, and education as key intervention elements. IMPLICATIONS: Findings underscore an occupationally focused return-to-work intervention for people recovering from depression with potential for wider adoption and future research.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".