Get ’Er Done: Experiences of Canadian Farmers Living with Chronic Low Back Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study explored the experiences of adult farmers living with chronic low back disorders (LBDs) in Saskatchewan. Method: A qualitative phenomenological approach with inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze semi-structured interviews that had been audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview items focused on the perceived cause of LBDs, their impact on social and work life, coping strategies, and health care access and use. Results: A total of 12 face-to-face interviews were conducted with 11 men and 1 woman aged 40–84 years. Two overarching themes emerged: seasonality and isolation. Related sub-themes included pushing through, doing less, barriers to health care, and self-management. Conclusions: Farmers are faced with seasonal demands and geographical constraints, which lead them to push through the pain or do less when experiencing an episode of low back pain. In addition, farmers identified many barriers to accessing health care services that caused them to develop self-management techniques to cope or to go without care. This study provides the groundwork for future research addressing the unique occupational demands of farmers. Knowledge of farmers’ experiences with chronic LBDs and their challenges regarding health care access can help inform health care providers and decision makers and contribute to tailored services and management approaches for similar rural and remote regions in other parts of the world.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".