Accommodations and Adaptations to Overcome Workplace Disability in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are chronic, incurable diseases which are often characterized by unpredictable flares and troubling symptoms which can interfere with a patient's ability to work. Accommodations in the workplace can help persons with IBD to cope with their illness and work effectively. We systematically reviewed all studies regarding workplace disability in IBD patients. SUMMARY: Systematic searches were undertaken on February 5 and March 5, 2018, for the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL, for studies that addressed workplace needs, accommodations and adaptations using survey tools. Of 430 studies screened, 54 met initial eligibility criteria and then 6 studies were ultimately included, with a total of 7,700 participants. Five studies were quantitative, and 1 study was qualitative. Common themes were the importance of reasonable adjustments and accommodations in the workplace, mixed with the finding that a significant proportion reported that they had some difficulty arranging accommodations. Adaptations most required were access to a toilet or toilet breaks and time to go to medical appointments. KEY MESSAGES: People with IBD often need accommodations, but many do not ask or have difficulty arranging it. Better resources are needed to inform people with IBD about the possibilities for workplace accommodations and practical strategies to request them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".