Workplace challenges, supports, and accommodations for people with inflammatory bowel disease: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize the breadth of challenges that people with IBD experience in the workplace and identify supports and accommodations that can help sustain employment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE) and grey literature websites identified English-language studies published from inception through to June 2020. Studies where details were insufficient to extract the study purpose, sample, methods, and findings were deemed of poorer quality and excluded. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met selection criteria. Studies discussed common workplace challenges, including career planning, work performance, managing physical and cognitive symptoms, social impacts at work, and challenges related to the physical work environment and commuting. The range of workplace supports identified by studies was classified into five categories: flexibility, changes to the physical work environment, social support, self-management strategies, and extended health benefits. CONCLUSIONS: IBD research typically has been descriptive and focused on broad characterizations of workplace challenges and supports. Future work needs to examine causal pathways and assess the efficacy of workplace supports, as well as conduct subgroup analyses and develop resources to facilitate communication and accommodation planning between workers living with IBD and their employers.Implications for RehabilitationRehabilitation professionals can play an important role in supporting people working with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) by identifying accommodations and ways to make work environments more supportive.Providing rehabilitation support to people with IBD goes beyond symptom management and needs to consider the broader social, policy, and environmental challenges of employment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".