O-202 Workers on Prolonged Work Disability for Musculoskeletal Disorders do not worry for nothing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Workers worry during prolonged work disability, but do their worries relate to their actual work disability situation? Objective The aim of this study was to assess worries and their maintaining factors, while considering the margin of maneuver/leeway at work and their impact on return to work (RTW). Methods We conducted a cohort study with a convenience sample of 79 (39 men and 40 women) workers having persistent (≥3 months) work-related musculoskeletal disorders causing absence from their regular work. Following Dugas’ theory validated self-administered questionnaires (ex.: intolerance of uncertainty, utility of worrying) were completed at the beginning and the end of the work rehabilitation program. Also, the questionnaire on type of worries (QTW) assessed specific types of worries and their relationship to work. Trained occupational therapists, (n = 16) evaluated the margin of maneuver of all workers. Multivariate analyses were performed on RTW predicted by workers’ indicators and occupational therapists’ margin of maneuver. Results Twenty-one workers did not RTW The model predicted 54% of the variance in N-RTW (p .0001). Significant factors explaining N-RTW were: lack of a margin of maneuver (OR = 8.5; p = .008); high intolerance for uncertainties (OR = 1.12; p = .01), perceived utility of worrying (OR = 1.11; p .001), and for the QTW scores, a high mean intensity of worries (OR = 2; p = .004) emerging from actual situations (OR = 17.15; p = .02) occurring at work (OR = 8.5). A posthoc analysis (pseudo R2 = .33; p = ) shows that a lack of a margin of maneuver is associated with QTW scores of worries emerging from uncertainties at work. Conclusion Workers not returning to work worry about actual situations at work, but this is also associated with low margin of maneuver, assessed by occupational therapists. Thus, RTW interventions should focus on the work environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".