8287478 Investigating differences in return-to-work for workers with work-related chronic pain and concurrent psychological injuries in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To investigate differences in time for return-to-work (RTW) among psychological, chronic pain, and concurrent psychological with chronic pain injuries and to identify the most influential factors affecting the likelihood of RTW for each injury type. Methods Workers’ compensation claims data were used to identify workers (n=414,507) with an accepted time-loss claim due to work-related psychological, chronic pain, concurrent psychological with chronic pain injuries, or other injury types occurring between 2012 and 2019, with up to 3 years (1095 days) of follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze differences in time to RTW. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the role of socio-demographic and work characteristics in determining the likelihood of RTW for each injury type. Results Descriptive statistics reveal substantial differences in days to RTW after injury, with concurrent psychological with chronic pain having the longest durations (median=1095 days [IQR:1095 – 1095 days]), followed by chronic pain (median=1095 days [IQR:327 – 1095 days]) and psychological (median=422.5 days [IQR:74 – 1095 days]). All other injuries had a median of 21 days [IQR:7 – 83 days]. Variables such as older age and smaller firm size reduced the likelihood of RTW across all injury types, while other variables had injury-specific effects. For example, men were less likely to RTW compared to women (OR:0.86 [95% CI:0.77 – 0.96]) for psychological injury; workers with lower wages were less likely to RTW compared to those with higher wages (OR:0.58 [95% CI:0.52 – 0.64]) for chronic pain; and, health occupations were less likely to RTW for concurrent psychological injury with chronic pain (OR:0.49 [95% CI:0.25 – 0.94]). Conclusion There were large differences in RTW across injury types, and various characteristics impacted the likelihood of RTW differently across injury types. The small proportion of workers who had RTW after 3 years for concurrent psychological injury with chronic pain injuries warrants further research. Funding WorkSafeBC Research Training Award
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".