P-328 Age differences in work-disability duration across Canada: Examining variations by follow-up time and context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Research has examined age-related patterns in return to work and wage-replacement duration following a workplace injury. The various clinical, functional or physiological factors studied do not fully account for age differences in wage-replacement duration. One contextual factor that has been largely overlooked in research studies is the potential impact of the phase of recovery. Objectives This study aimed to understand age differences in wage-replacement duration by focusing on variations in the relationship across different periods of follow-up time. Methods We used administrative claims data provided by six workers’ compensation systems in Canada, focusing on time-loss claims for workers aged 15–80 years with a work-related injury/illness during the 2011 to 2015 period. Survival analysis examined age-related differences in the hazard of transitioning off (versus remaining on) disability benefits, allowing for relaxed proportionality constraints on the hazard rates over time. Differences were examined on the absolute (hazard difference) and relative (hazard ratios [HR]) scales. Results Older age groups had a lower likelihood of transitioning off wage-replacement benefits compared to younger age groups in the overall models (e.g., 55–64 vs. 15–24 years: HR 0.62). However, absolute and relative differences in age-specific hazard rates varied as a function of follow-up time. The greatest age-related differences were observed at earlier event times and were attenuated towards a null difference across later follow-up times. Conclusion Our study provides insight into the workplace injury/illness claim and recovery processes and suggests that older age is not always strongly associated with worse disability duration outcomes at longer disability durations. The use of data from multiple jurisdictions lends external validity to our findings and demonstrates the utility of using cross-jurisdictional data extracts. Future work should examine the social and contextual determinants that operate during various recovery phases, and how these factors interact with age.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".