Occurrence and impact of back pain on the quality of life of healthcare workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Back pain affects specific occupational groups, among which healthcare workers are the most predisposed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the interdependences between subjective disability and their correlation with pain intensity and quality of life assessment among professionally active medical workers, taking into account working, socio-demographic and health conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cross-sectional study enrolled 110 professionally active medical workers (nurses, midwives, paramedics and physiotherapists). The study was conducted by a diagnostic survey method using 4 questionnaires: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (WHOQoL-BREF), and the authors' questionnaire. RESULTS: Back pain was reported by 103 respondents (94%) with the lumbar area indicated the most frequently (72.81%). Severe pain every day was reported by 49.51% of respondents and was associated with longer working time. ODI questionnaire confirmed III and IV degrees of disability in paramedics and nurses, who additionally obtained the lowest results in the quality of life assessment. Correlations between age and VAS were demonstrated (p=0.002), and between VAS and ODI pain (p<0.0001) and ODI disability (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Back pain associated with professional activities is the consequence of overload. Health care workers should be included in a preventive programme and attend systematic ergonomics courses. Health care facilities should be retrofitted with equipment enabling work in accordance with the principles of ergonomics. The ODI questionnaire, together with the VAS method and scales for testing the quality of life, are useful tools in the clinical assessment of individuals with back pain.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".