Workplace Wellness Program Interest and Barriers Among Workers With Work-Related Permanent Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nearly half of U.S. workers have access to workplace wellness programs (WWPs), 58% of workers with access participate. The aim of this study was to assess interest in WWP participation and identify reasons for lack of interest among workers with work-related permanent impairments-a population at elevated risk of adverse health outcomes. METHODS: Workers who returned to work after a work-related permanent impairment were interviewed 11 to 15 months after workers' compensation claim closure. Qualitative content analysis methods were used to code open-ended responses. FINDINGS: Of 560 respondents, 51.4% expressed interest in WWP participation. Numerous adverse health and economic characteristics were associated with WWP interest, for example, interest was expressed by 63.3% of workers reporting fair/poor health status versus 47.1% reporting good/excellent; 56.9% of workers reporting moderate/severe pain versus 41.4% reporting mild/no pain; 64.7% of workers without health insurance versus 50.1% with health insurance; 69.0% of workers reporting depression versus 47.2% without depression; 70.4% of workers reporting obesity versus 48.0% without obesity; and 63.2% of workers often worried about expenses versus 46.9% reporting sometimes/never worried. Specific participation barriers were described by 34.2% of the 272 workers who were not interested. CONCLUSIONS/APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE: A majority of workers with work-related permanent impairments-particularly those with adverse health and economic characteristics-were interested in WWPs. Many workers who reported no interest cited participation barriers. Further research is needed to determine whether addressing such barriers would enhance equitable access. Those undertaking WWP planning, implementation, and outreach should ensure that WWPs are inclusive and serve workers with disabilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".