Using a Workplace Rehabilitation and Reintegration Program Tracker Tool to Explore Factors Associated With Return to Duty Among Ill/Injured Military Personnel: A Preliminary Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A great deal of time and resources have been spent on developing and implementing evidence-based return to work programs over the past few decades, compelling researchers to better understand the factors associated with more favorable outcomes. Using data collected as part of a participant tracking system trial for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Return to Duty (RTD) program, analyses were conducted to better understand the trajectories of program participants and identify the factors associated with RTD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants included 205 Regular Force CAF members from a single military base located in Eastern Canada who entered the RTD program during the trial period between April 2018 and March 2020. The health condition they were facing was mostly recent (i.e., onset within the past 6 months; 43%) and involved their mental health (67%). Data were collected on various demographic, military, health, and program characteristics using the RTD Data Collection Tool, which was updated periodically by program coordinators. Using data gathered by the Tool, a cumulative incidence function was generated to estimate the overall marginal probability of RTD over the duration of the program. Associations between RTD and a range of factors that were captured using the Tool were also examined in a series of competing-risks regressions. RESULTS: Findings indicated that the rate of RTD among program participants increased at around 3 months and began to level off around 9 months, suggesting that the likelihood of RTD after this window is diminished. Of the many factors that were considered, only years of service and work placement status at 3 months were found to be associated with RTD. Specifically, lower rates of RTD were observed among participants with 15 or more years of service compared to those with less than 5 years of service in the CAF and among those who were not yet assigned a work placement at 3 months relative to those who were. CONCLUSION: This study represents a first step in addressing the gap in our current knowledge about the characteristics of CAF members participating in the RTD program and the factors associated with RTD. Several recommendations are made for improving the participant tracking system in view of enhancing the level and quality of information that is available to assess participants' trajectories and inform further development of the program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".