Financial evaluation of interventions to reduce musculoskeletal disorder risk: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• More comprehensive information on financial returns of WMSD prevention is needed. • Most return on investment tools do not capture the complexity of WMSD aetiology. • Qualitative data needed to support understanding of return on investment. • Economic evaluations needed in a broader range of countries that currently available. Many interventions have aimed to reduce the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) which are a costly occupational health problem. However, information on the return on investment of these interventions is limited. This scoping review mapped published evidence of types of financial tools used to assess the return on investment on interventions to reduce WMSDs. The level within the organisation at which the intervention was targeted was also examined. PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and Embase were searched from 2000 to August 2023. Studies with financial evaluations of workplaces intervention/s to reduce WSMDs were included. Coding of financial tools, cost and benefit factors, and the level at which interventions were targeted was undertaken. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. One author extracted data with review by a second author. Thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were mostly from the US (n = 9), Canada (n = 8) and the Netherlands (n = 6). Cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and return on investment approaches were used. Most commonly used cost factors included personnel, equipment, intervention costs, training, and consultant fees, and for economic benefits, productivity, absenteeism, and compensation. Current tools and approaches to economic evaluation do not take into account the likely efficacy of interventions and need to include a broader suite of cost and impact factors, based on known contributory factors such as exposure to psychosocial hazards and lead indicators such as reporting of musculoskeletal pain.
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 it