Perceived Value of a Knowledge Translation Intervention Designed to Facilitate Burn Survivors’ Work Reintegration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Returning to work can be challenging for burn survivors. Approximately 28% never return to any form of employment, resulting in lower health-related quality of life. Open communication has been identified as a facilitator for return to work (RTW). To ease the RTW process and promote communication with coworkers and employers a knowledge translation (KT) intervention was developed for burn survivors. Following its implementation, the impact on the RTW process was evaluated. This study was a cross-sectional, mixed methods study where burn survivors included in the KT intervention were compared with a control group. Control group participants were selectively invited so that the two groups' mean age, sex, and percent total body surface area burned were similar. Semistructured interviews gathered information about their RTW process and outcomes. Qualitative data were analyzed through thematic analysis and quantitative data were summarized and compared using Mann-Whitney tests. Overall, both groups were satisfied with their RTW process. Participants from the control group identified more barriers related to support received, particularly at work, and reported more psychological symptoms such as posttraumatic stress disorder, self-consciousness, and discomfort with questions. Many participants from the KT group indicated the KT intervention gave them tools and information to provide others with a better understanding of their lived experience. It is possible that the KT intervention facilitated more open communication by empowering burn survivors to explain their situation on their own, thus reducing the prevalence of social and psychological barriers by allowing them to self-advocate for more support.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".