MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809795205 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v8n11p50

Musculoskeletal disorder: Risk factors and coping strategies among nurses

2018· article· en· W2809795205 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lamia Amin Awad Salama, Hend Abdel Monem Eleshenamie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)MedicineMusculoskeletal disorderNursingNursing staffHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatryEmergency medicinePoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It is established that nurses suffer from varying degrees of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD) at different regions of their body, which results in frequent loss of work days. Aim of study is to identify the risk factors for developing musculoskeletal disorder and to determine the coping strategies to reduce their frequency.Methods: This study was conducted in the Outpatient Departments (OPDs), intensive care units of University Hospital and also from the nursing schoolof the Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria, Egypt.Results: A high proportion of nurses reported MSD (99.0%) during the last year. Also during their whole careers at one or the other body regions, with the shoulder (97.0%) and Neck (95.0%) being the most commonly affected. Nurses with more than two pregnancies and usage of computer for more than two years were those with the most perceived risk factors for MSD. The usage of different part of body by the nurses as a coping mechanism during the nursing procedures (34.0%) and change of posture (30.0%) were the top two statistically significant coping strategies.Conclusions: The study confirms very high prevalence of MSD among the nursing staff and it was prominent at some specific body parts, of which neck and shoulder were the most affected.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.378 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207