Workplace Injury Prevention and Wellness Program for Orchestra Musicians: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a workplace injury prevention and wellness program compared to no intervention (control) on musicians’ playing-related musculoskeletal pain intensity. The hypothesis was that musicians who completed the program would have a greater reduction in pain intensity than the control group. DESIGN: Pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty-five orchestra musicians were recruited and completed patient-reported outcome measures (primary outcome: pain intensity over 11 months, using the Musculoskeletal Pain Intensity and Interference Questionnaire for Musicians; range: 0-40; lower is better) at baseline, 14 weeks (T1), and 11 months (T2). Following baseline assessment, participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 33) or control (n = 32) groups, stratified by instrument and pain prevalence. The intervention group received a 14-week injury prevention and wellness program including education and exercise; the control group received no intervention. RESULTS: Pain intensity means (standard deviation) were 7.8 (6.2), 8.0 (7.5), and 8.6 (5.7) in the control group, and 9.0 (6.6), 5.0 (4.2), and 6.7 (6.6) in the intervention group at T0, T1, and T2, respectively. Using intention-to-treat analyses (3 dropouts, n = 65 analyzed), between-group differences in pain intensity (95% confidence interval) were T1-T0: −4.2 (−7.5, −0.9); T2-T0: −3.7 (−7.1, −0.3), type III (overall) P = .03, favoring the intervention group. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: A workplace injury prevention and wellness program may have a clinically meaningful effect on reducing orchestra musicians’ pain intensity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):584-593. Epub 11 June 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12277
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".