P-607 WORK REHABILITATION PROFESSIONALS’ PERSPECTIVES ON SPECIFIC ISSUES AND NEEDS OF WORKERS AGED 55 OR OVER INVOLVED IN A REHABILITATION PROCESS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Work disability affects a growing number of workers aged 55 or over (W55+), but little is known about the challenges they face. This study aims to describe the perceived needs of work rehabilitation professionals in order to improve services offered to W55+. Methods This study used a descriptive design with purposive sampling. Occupational therapists, physical therapists, and psychologists were recruited in various workplaces. Qualitative interviews based on the work disability paradigm were conducted and transcribed, and a thematic analysis was performed. Results Sixteen (16) participants (average age 38 years) were interviewed, with near equal representation across men and women, as well as disciplines. The participants identified issues related to the workers themselves (e.g. less capacity to meet the work demands, mitigated engagement), the workplace (e.g. lack of recognition and support) and the insurer (e.g. lack of flexibility in certain rules). They also described how problems of communication with other stakeholders hinder interventions. Five actions aiming to (1) better equip health professionals for interventions with W55+; (2) facilitate communications; (3) support coordination; (4) raise awareness about specific issues and needs of these workers, and (5) promote integrated prevention management in workplaces are proposed to address these concerns. Discussion The results reveal close interactions between systems, and hence the need for action across them. Conclusion Perspectives of employers, insurers and workers need to be documented in order to identify and prioritize the needs to be addressed and actions to be taken to better support the return to work of W55+.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".