A Survey of Canadian Massage Therapists Experiences of Work-Related Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An investigation into the work-related pain (WRP) experienced by Massage Therapists (MTs) in Ontario, Canada was undertaken using voluntary completion of an online questionnaire following broad distribution of requests to take part in this study. Data from respondents were included for analysis if they provided informed consent and were a currently or previously registered MT in the region. With voluntary participation, self-selection respondent bias must be considered in evaluating reported results. Valid questionnaires (n=1103) were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Massage therapists ranged in age from 20 to 73 years, and 85% of respondents were female. The overwhelming majority (85%) of MTs had experienced, or were experiencing, WRP at one or more of five pre-identified, primary locations with the hand/wrist, the most common site (65.5%); followed by the fingers/thumb (60.3%), shoulder (55.0%), lower back (50.1%), and neck (49.2%). Females were significantly more likely to report neck and shoulder pain than males, and were significantly more likely to report WRP at a higher number of body locations, with approximately one in five female MTs reporting WRP at all (5) primary sites. On a 10-point pain-severity scale, females reported significantly higher perceived pain than males. Work-related pain was attributed to the gradual onset of musculoskeletal conditions by 60.3% of respondents, with no other choice of cause being reported by more than 11.1%. There was clear indication of WRP impacting the lives of MTs, with 48% reporting an impact on activities of daily living, 31% reporting a loss of income, 54.6% working in pain, and 30.5% considering changing (or having changed) their profession. Various work adjustments to WRP were reported, including altered biomechanics and greater rest between patient treatments. The reported data suggested that WRP was a limiting factor for MTs' work capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".