RF-326 Does participation in modified return to work differ for immigrant compared to Canadian-born workers in British Columbia, Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The longer workers are off work, the less likely they are to successfully return to work. Modified return-to-work (MRTW) provides earlier work reintegration after an injury with the goal of full recovery and shorter work disability durations. Objective This study examined differences in MRTW participation for immigrant compared to Canadian-born workers with a work-related injury in British Columbia. Methods Workers’ compensation claims data linked with immigration records were used to identify immigrant (economic, family or refugees/other classifications) and Canadian-born workers with an accepted short-term disability claim between 2009–2015 for acute (fracture and concussion) and chronic injuries (back strain and connective tissue). Injury cohorts were restricted to 30 days on claim for a common disability window to measure MRTW participation. The outcome of MRTW was measured as never offered MRTW or an offer of MRTW within the first 30 days on benefits. Individuals with an offer beyond 30 days were excluded. Results In adjusted logistic regression models, immigrant classification was associated with a decreased odds ratio (OR) of receiving an offer of MRTW within 30 days across injury cohorts. For example, for workers with back strain injuries: OR=0.97 [95%CI 0.88, 1.07] for economic immigrants, OR=0.72 [95%CI 0.66, 0.79] for family class immigrants, and OR=0.74 [95% CI 0.64, 0.86] for refugee/other classifications. Similarly, for workers with a fracture injury: OR=0.94 [95%CI 0.72, 1.22] for economic immigrants, OR=0.84 [95%CI 0.64, 1.11] for family class immigrants, and OR=0.42 [95%CI 0.24, 0.76] for refugee/other classifications. Conclusion Understanding why immigrant workers are less likely to be offered MRTW compared to Canadian-born workers for the same injuries is worthy of further investigation, and in particular for workers who arrived to Canada as refugees. A focus on increasing earlier provision of MRTW for longer term claims has the potential to reduce work disability duration among immigrant workers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".