Translation and initial cross-cultural adaptation of the tool for support-gradual return-to-work for persons with chronic musculoskeletal pain to the Swedish setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A well-defined and clear procedure is a key factor supporting return-to-work and enhancing collaboration and understanding between employers and employees. The adaptation of the Tool for Support-Gradual Return to Work, TS-GRTW, addresses relevant cultural aspects valuable for wider adoption. OBJECTIVE: develop a Swedish version, the GRTWswe, for implementation and integration into the Swedish labor market's RTW process. This involved translating, culturally adapting, and assessing the appropriateness and utility. METHODS: In the initial step, a double back translation was performed to create an initial translated version. This version was then utilized in individual consultations, accompanied by an agreement questionnaire. For the subsequent step, group consultations were held to refine and customize the tool to suit the Swedish context. Ten occupational therapists completed the questionnaires, with mean agreement scores surpassing three on a four-point scale. Out of these, nine participated in group consultations. RESULTS: The findings suggest the requirement for specific modifications to the GRTWswe. These adaptations are essential because of cultural differences in organizational structures and reference frameworks. Moreover, participants unanimously agreed to broaden the scope of target groups, encompassing employees without regard for diagnosis and expanding the range of professions that can utilize this tool. This step aims to enhance the tool's applicability and usefulness. CONCLUSIONS: The study found strong alignment between questionnaire responses and group consultations outcomes, affirming the adapted tool's suitability for use in a Swedish context. The tool benefits employers and employees by enhancing communication, encouraging collaboration, and structuring processes, promising lasting improvements to work conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".