MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

356 Workers age 55 and older working with pain

2018· article· en· W2799494099 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie-Christine Richard, Marie‐José Durand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageMedicineFeelingWork (physics)Retirement ageRehabilitationDemographicsPerceptionGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychologyDemographyEngineeringBusinessSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The average worker in industrialised countries is ageing. The baby boomer generation (born 1946–1965) is gradually reaching retirement age. In Canada, the share of workers in the age 55+age group is expected to attain 24% in 2031. There is also a shortage of young workers to replace retirees. Although data suggest that at least one in five older workers suffers from chronic musculoskeletal pain, most will continue working despite pain. Very little is known about the factors contributing to or compromising the likelihood of these workers staying at work with pain. Methods An interpretive descriptive method was used to explore factors associated with staying at work with pain. A transdisciplinary conceptual model was created, based on literature from the fields of work rehabilitation, ergonomics and demographics. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted. Inclusion criteria were: blue collar workers, musculoskeletal pain (excluding cancer pain) for 6 months or more, and working 28 hours weekly or more. Analysis was performed using themes from the conceptual model; intra- and inter-case analysis was conducted using qualitative data analysis software. Results Fifteen participants (7 women) were included, ages 55–70. They ranged from self-employed individuals to employees of large organisations, with half of them working in the private sector. Although all participants mentioned the importance of financial factors in their decision to stay at work, they did not generally consider it the main reason. For most, the perception of being useful, having peer recognition and feeling that work contributes to health were essential drivers for staying at work. Flexibility at work was deemed essential by all but took various forms. Discussion This study identified, for the first time, both personal and work-related factors associated with working in the presence of pain. These results will help in developing better strategies to keep ageing workers at work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→