Experiences in the return-to-work process of workers having suffered occupational injuries in small and medium size enterprises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) represent 95 % of businesses and are economically essential. When occupational injuries occur, scientific literature suggests that the return-to-work (RTW) success rate is proportional to the size of enterprises and the way RTW is managed may put workers in SMEs at risk. As most studies on RTW organizational practices have been conducted with large enterprises, little is known about how RTW is managed in SMEs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore SME's organizational practices in the RTW process of workers having suffered an occupational injury. METHODS: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 15 participants from 3 different stakeholder categories (i.e., SME representatives, workers, and healthcare professionals) in order to explore their experiences regarding RTW in SMEs. Data were analyzed using a phenomenological analysis strategy. RESULTS: SMEs' organisational practices evoked by participants gather in three themes: 1) Reducing the risks of occupational injuries (i.e., ensuring injury prevention), 2) Managing occupational injuries (i.e., dealing with the initial occupational injury, handling administrative aspects of work disability, and being actively involved in the RTW process), and 3) Preventing consequences of occupational injuries (i.e., adapting operations following injuries). CONCLUSION: Organizational practices for RTW are used diversely in SMEs. Proposed lines of action adapted to the realities and needs of SMEs may be beneficial to hundreds of thousands of workers, enterprises and professionals involved in the RTW process.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".