Prevalence and Acceptability of Dedicated Social Work Support in the Fracture Clinic: A Survey of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of social work services in outpatient fracture clinics, and the potential benefits and barriers to integrating these services as perceived by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN AND JUSTIFICATION: Cross-sectional survey of orthopaedic trauma surgeons. ETHICAL ISSUES AND APPROVAL: Approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, #16227 RESEARCH METHODS, INSTRUMENTS AND/OR INTERVENTIONS: A brief, anonymous, self-administered online survey. RESULTS: Of 88 respondents, 16% currently had dedicated social work services available at their clinic. Respondents expressed strong agreement that social workers could effectively address various patient needs, including assistance with intimate partner violence (88.6%), transportation (86.4%), home care (85.2%) and addictions support (81.8%). Respondents acknowledged the critical need for social work services in the fracture clinic, particularly in addressing employment, psychological support and housing crises. STUDY LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by a small sample size and possible selection bias. Due to the anonymous online distribution, determining the rate of response was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the potential for enhanced patient care through interdisciplinary collaboration and social work support in outpatient orthopaedic trauma settings.
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 | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".