Work Productivity Losses and Associated Risk Factors Among University Employees in the CAMMPUS Wellness Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to comprehensively measure work productivity losses of employees enrolled in a pharmacist-led wellness program and assess associated risk factors. METHODS: The study sample was employees at least 18 years old with a Framingham Risk Score (FRS) at least 10% or 1+ medication-modifiable cardiovascular risk factor (196 participants at baseline and 166 at 12-month endpoint). Total work hour losses (WHL) were measured using the Valuation of Lost Productivity questionnaire. The factors anticipated to be associated with WHL included work habits, FRS, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: Sedentary work habits, higher BMI, and lower HRQoL were significantly associated with more WHL for males. Among females, only a lower HRQoL was significantly associated with more WHL. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings help identify employees at greater risk for WHL and provide insights on how workplace wellness programs can be modified.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".