MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327520331 · doi:10.15173/mujph.v1i1.3311

Exploring Canadian Career Firefighters’ Understanding of the Return-to-Work Process after Musculoskeletal Injuries

2022· article· en· W4327520331 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shannon Killip

Bibliographic record

VenueMcMaster University Journal of Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Thematic analysisFirefightingFacilitatorOccupational safety and healthMusculoskeletal injuryPsychologyQualitative researchApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyEngineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Firefighters perform dangerous and physically demanding work, increasing their risk of musculoskeletal injuries that can lead to work absences. Return-to-work procedures can help firefighters return-to-work. The purpose was to explore what firefighters understand about return-to-work procedures in their workplaces, and what firefighters believe the facilitators and barriers to return-to-work are. METHODS: Thirty-eight Canadian career firefighters were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Qualitative description methods were used to analyze the transcripts. Two researchers performed the inductive coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: 1. Variation in the return-to-work process knowledge among firefighters; 2. Accessible medical resources and treatments for the recovery of an injury; 3. Modified work must be meaningful and suitable; 4. Pressures to return-to-work too soon can lead to negative consequences; 5. Heavy physical demands of firefighting can make it more difficult to return-to-work. There was a variation in the experiences and understanding of return-to-work, as some firefighters were unaware of return-to-work procedures in their departments, while others had been through the return-to-work process for injuries they had sustained. Many reported facilitators for return-to-work were also reported as barriers in different contexts. For example, the availability of modified work allowed firefighters to return-to-work sooner and was seen as a facilitator by many firefighters, whereas some firefighters believed that the modified work lacked meaning, was not suitable, and acted as a barrier to returning to firefighting duties. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of knowledge of the return-to-work processes; thus, firefighters should have access to clear return-to-work policies and procedures. Firefighters require treatments that are targeted to firefighting duties to help recover from injuries and regain functional physical abilities after an injury. Firefighters must be fully recovered, as returning to work too soon due to personal and workplace pressures can lead to re-injury or injuries to others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.270
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.087 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcMaster University Journal of Public HealthSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207