MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407622778 · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106816

Financial evaluation of interventions to reduce musculoskeletal disorder risk: A scoping review

2025· review· en· W4407622778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jodi Oakman, Samantha Clune, Victoria Weale

Bibliographic record

VenueSafety Science · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorkSafe VictoriaLa Trobe University
KeywordsPsychological interventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSuicide preventionMusculoskeletal disorderRisk assessmentMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringFinanceEnvironmental healthComputer scienceComputer securityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• 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.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSafety ScienceSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207