Pain Rehabilitation During Adolescence; Work in Adulthood? A Long‐Term Follow‐Up Study to Explore the Facilitators and Barriers for Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain face different impairments in daily life. After an inpatient pain rehabilitation program, adolescents function better on several domains. The aim of this study was to explore the long-term work participation of adults who followed inpatient pain rehabilitation during adolescence because of chronic musculoskeletal pain and to identify potential facilitators and barriers regarding work in later life. METHODS: A mixed-methods study with standardized questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaires measured pain, disability, work status, and the quality and quantity of the work. The interviews contained questions about work participation. Potential participants were all patients who had participated in an inpatient pain rehabilitation program 15 to 20 years previously. Analyses were performed by thematic analysis. Using the Sherbrooke model as guidance, themes were classified into 4 systems: healthcare, workplace, legislative/insurance, and personal. RESULTS: Fourteen patients consented to participate (12 females). Seventy-one percent of them had paid work. The mean self-reported quality of the work delivered was 9.6 (standard deviation = 0.5). Eighteen facilitators and 12 barriers regarding work participation later on in life were mentioned. The inpatient pain rehabilitation program was the most frequently mentioned facilitator (n = 5), while the personal system and coping-related factors were the most frequently mentioned barriers (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: Ten out of 14 participants are currently working, most of them despite experiencing pain. Several factors based on the 4 systems of the Sherbrooke model contribute as facilitators or barriers regarding current work participation. Pain rehabilitation is mostly regarded as a facilitator for work participation later on in life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".