Exploring the challenges and impact of work-related shoulder disorders on North American firefighters: an interpretive description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Firefighters (FFs) are exposed to physically demanding tasks that increase their risk of work-related shoulder disorders (WSDs). Despite the critical nature of their work, qualitative research remains limited in exploring the impact of WSDs on their well-being, as well as the challenges they encounter within the workplace and healthcare system. Objectives: To explore: (1) The impact of WSDs on the well-being and job performance of FFs, (2) The occupational health challenges encountered by FFs with WSDs during recovery. Methods: A total of 14 FFs (Males = 9, Females = 5) between 26 and 63 years old experiencing WSDs were purposefully sampled by sex and geographical location. Data was collected through virtual one-on-one semi-structured interviews and transcribed verbatim. Interpretive description methodology was used, and data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings: Firefighters with WSDs indicated that pain and mobility limitations significantly impaired their ability to perform critical job tasks such as lifting, reaching, and administering life-saving interventions. In their personal lives, WSDs disrupt routine activities, fitness, and family interactions. Sleep deprivation due to pain and shift work further exacerbates physical and cognitive strain, impacting their job performance. Occupationally, FFs reported lost work time, financial strain, and career setbacks due to modified duties, often leading to feelings of guilt, isolation, and diminished professional identity. Additionally, operational challenges related to poorly designed firefighting equipment and protective gear were reported to increase the risk of re-injury, particularly for female FFs and those with smaller statures. Lastly, healthcare challenges such as lack of tailored health care protocols and suboptimal intervention programs were reported. Conclusion: This study underscores the complex interplay of physical, occupational, and psychosocial factors in shaping firefighters' experiences with WSDs. This emphasizes the need for ergonomic improvements, better healthcare protocols, and psychosocial support to improve the well-being of FFs with WSDs. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12982-025-01131-2.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".