<p>The importance of chronic pain education and awareness amongst occupational safety and health professionals</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals are often the point of contact for health and safety policies derived in the workplace, and the handling of incidents in their aftermath. As chronic pain affects 20% of people, many pain-awareness campaigns and educational activities target healthcare professionals. However, initiatives directed toward OSH professionals are also important to aid in prevention and rehabilitation efforts. The objective of this study was to describe knowledge and attitudes of OSH students with regard to chronic pain. Methods: A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted amongst a convenience sample of 88 students enrolled in the distance learning OSH undergraduate certificate program at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (Quebec, Canada). Results: Although 30% of students were already employed within OSH or human resources and 40% reported intervening in cases involving chronic pain in their line of work, 56% of respondents had received no training on chronic pain and its treatment in the past five years. Only 14% chose to take the optional 45 hr course dedicated to pain within the program. OSH students also exhibited poorer knowledge and more negative attitudes toward people suffering from chronic pain when compared to other groups assessed in the province of Quebec, including healthcare professionals, chronic pain patients, and people not suffering from chronic pain ( p ≤0.0002). Half of the respondents (51.9%) were not aware that chronic pain affects 1 in 5 adults. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates a need for pain education within OSH training programs and through continuing education. Keywords: knowledge, attitudes, education, chronic pain, occupational safety and health, OSH
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".