Course participation and the recognition and reporting of occupational ill-health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Foundation Course in Occupational Medicine for community-based physicians was started in Alberta in 2012 and has since been implemented across Canada. As part of the evaluation of the first 4 years, two studies were initiated to assess the impact of the course on assessment of work-relatedness and case-reporting. AIMS: To determine whether assessment of work-relatedness, intention to report cases and number of cases reported to the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) changed during/after the course. METHODS: In study 1, course participants were asked to rate scenarios describing ill-health potentially resulting from work. They rated work-relatedness on a visual analogue scale and recorded whether they would report to the WCB. Assessments were made before the course started, after course completion or both. In study 2, numbers of reports to the WCB were documented for physicians giving consent, both for Foundation Course participants and a comparison group of community-based physicians. Multilevel regression models were fitted to allow for potential confounders and clustering within respondent. RESULTS: Among 102 physicians completing at least one set of scenario assessments, ratings of work-relatedness (β = 6.5; 95% CI 2.6-10.4) and likelihood of reporting to the WCB (OR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.2-3.1) increased significantly post-course. The mean annual number of cases reported to the WCB increased from 91.8 to 125.7 among the 35 Alberta physicians included in study 2. This change was only significant (P < 0.05) on a one-sided test. CONCLUSION: The two evaluative studies showed good evidence of changes in perceptions and intentions but only weak evidence of behavioural change.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".