MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115538716 · doi:10.1177/0269215520984319

Return to work following total knee arthroplasty: A multiple case study of stakeholder perspectives

2020· article· en· W3115538716 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐France Coutu, Nathaly Gaudreault, Marie-Ève Major, Iuliana Nastasia, Réjean Dumais, Annie Deshaies, Sara Pettigrew, Marie-Élise Labrecque, François Desmeules, Pascale Maillette

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travailUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)RehabilitationPhysical therapyMedicinePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The study’s aim was to gain insights into factors influencing sustainable return to work following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Design: A descriptive multiple-case design was used. A case was defined as a worker’s following TKA work disability situation. Settings: The cases came from public hospitals in urban and semi-urban areas in Quebec (Canada) and involved mostly non-work-related TKAs. Subjects: Workers had to be between 6 and 12 months post-TKA, have physical/manual jobs and currently employed. Their rehabilitation professionals and workplace representatives (employer and/or union) were also recruited, based on the work disability paradigm. Main measures: Semi-structured interviews, questionnaires on pain, physical work demands (workers only), and observation of the work activities of those workers back at work were used. Cases were compared and categorized for worker-perceived levels of difficulty in returning to or staying at work: little or no difficulty ( n = 8); some difficulty ( n = 5); not back at work due to excessive difficulty with their knee ( n = 4). Results: A total of 17 cases were constituted. In only one case, the worker benefitted from an interdisciplinary work rehabilitation approach. Results highlight the interplay among these factors: (1) the workers’ perceptions of their residual symptoms and ability to manage them, (2) the interaction between work adjustments and tools offered by the employers and the workers’ own strategies, and (3) perceptions of the workers’ physical capacities. Conclusion: Workers’ who face high levels of work demands/difficulties and who have limited access to work adjustments and tools should be referred for work rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207