MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387460469 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3405498/v1

Evaluating Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation Services Among Injured Workers Treated in a Canadian Workers’ Compensation System: A Population-Based Study

2023· preprint· en· W4387460469 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katelyn Brehon, Gagan Nagra, Maxi Miciak, Riikka Niemeläinen, Douglas P. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsWorkers Compensation Board of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
FundersWorkers' Compensation Board – Alberta
KeywordsTelerehabilitationMedicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioHazard ratioPhysical therapyWorkers' compensationRehabilitationDescriptive statisticsConfoundingTelemedicinePsychologyStatisticsCompensation (psychology)Health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for promoting return-to-work (RTW) among injured workers. Methods We conducted a pragmatic, quasi-experimental study comparing telerehabilitation, in-person, or hybrid services. Descriptive statistics analyzed demographics, occupational factors, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). ANOVAs and Kruskal-Wallis tests investigated differences between mode of delivery and changes in PROM scores. Logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression examined associations between mode of delivery and RTW status or days receiving wage replacement benefits in the first year post-discharge, respectively, while controlling for potential confounders. Results A slight majority of 3,708 worker sample were male (52.8%). Mean (standard deviation (SD)) age across all delivery formats was 45.5 (12.5) years. Edmonton zone had the highest amount of telerehabilitation delivery (53.5%). The majority of workers had their program delivered in a hybrid format (54.1%) and returned to work (74.4%) at discharge. All PROMs showed improvement although differences across delivery formats were not clinically meaningful. Delivery via telerehabilitation had significantly lower odds of RTW at discharge (Odds Ratio: 0.82, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.70–0.97) and a significantly lower risk of experiencing suspension of wage replacement benefits in the first year following discharge (Hazard Ratio: 0.92, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.84–0.99). Associations were no longer significant when confounders were controlled for. Conclusion RTW outcomes were not statistically different across delivery formats, suggesting that telerehabilitation is a novel strategy that may improve equitable access and earlier engagement in occupational rehabilitation. Factors such as gender and geographic location should be considered when deciding on service delivery format.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→