MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6997400014

Worker participation and return-to-work : a study among healthcare workers in the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority

2005· dissertation· en· W6997400014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2005
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Health careMeaning (existential)Health workerValue (mathematics)Occupational safety and health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lrsr or Flcunns ..""""""""IX Ansrnacr """""x CnaptpR ONn INrnoDUCTIoN...""""" 1 1.0The Meaning and Value of Work... """""" I 1.1 Work and Health """"""""""' 1 1. 2 The Consequences of Loss of Work """"'2 2.0 Workplace Injury """"""""""" 3 2.I The Economic Costs """""""' 3 2.2*ealthcare Workers at High Risk.......... """"""""""' 4 2.3 Socio-Cultulal Costs """""""' 5 3.0 Return-to-work """' 6 3.1 Positive and Negative Factors in Retum-to-work...... """""""""' 6 3.2 Benefits of Return-to-work """"""""""' 10 4.0 Worker Participation........... """"""""""' 10 4.i Worker Participation in the Workplace """""""""" 10 4.2 Worker Participation in Return-to-work.... """""""' 11 5.0 The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority.""""""""12 6.0 The Research Questions """"' 13 CnaprnnTwoLTTBRATURERnvrBw ........'."""' 14 1.0 Workplace Culture, Return-to-work, and Worker Participation......... .....14 1.1 Definitions of Occupation and Health "" 14 1.2 Definition of Workplace Culture """"""I4 L2.lTheworlElacesetting...... """""""" /5 1.3 The Definition and Parameters of Return-to-work.'............ """'17 1.4 Definition of Worker Participation...'.......' """""""'20 1.5 The Importance of Worker Participation.'.........'... """"""""""'22 1.5.1 Wo,rker empowerment.,....... """"""' 22 1.5.2Meaningful participation """"""""' 23 2.0 History of Worker Participation in the \ilorkplace......-.... """"'23 Tner-n oF CoNTENTS lI/orker participation and RTW Friesen, 2004 IV Worker ParticiPation and RT"llt 2.1 Economic Ideologies and Worker Participation """""""' """""25 2.1.1Capitalism........ """ ""' 25 2.1.2Communism....."..' """ 26 2.l.3The need to integrate the labour and the labourer "' """ " " ' 26 2.ZWorkpLace Democracy......... """""""""'27 2.2.1 Employee involvement """"""""""' 27 2.2.2 Emptoyee ownership and worker cooperative"""""""" """"""""""" 28 2.2.3 Wirlcplace democràcy in Sweden and North America """""' 54 3. *ealthservices System Factors in RTV/."" """"""' 55 3.5 Insurance System Factors in RTW """"' 56 3.6 Economic, Social and Legislative System Variables in Successful RTW....'.'.'......'...... 58 3.6.1 Social and economic variables .'."...""' """"""' 58 Friesen, 2004 llorker ParticiPation and RTW 3.6.2Legislative variables """ 59 4.0 The Manitoba Experience of work Injury and Return-to-work """"""" 60 5.0 A Multi-system Model of worker Participation and Return-to-work in the ¿.TVorkp1ace................ "" o¿ 6.0 Purpose of the Research""""" 67 6.1 Purpose...'....'..""' """"""""" 67 6.2 TheResearch Hypotheses """""""" """' 68 CnaprnnTunBn Mnrnonol.ocY""70 1.0 Research Design ""70 1.1 Mixed Methods Design'.""""""""""""' 70 1 .2Rationaie for Use of Survey Method " " ' ' 7 I 1.3 Rationale for Use of Qualiiative Methodology"""" """""""""'73 1.4 Participation Solicited in Design of Research """""75 2.0 The Study Participants....""""" """""""'75 2.1 The Sample Population """"'75 2.1.1Sampling itrategyfor employee survey """"""' 77 2.1.2Sampt;g strotãgy for thà mãnager survey """' 80 2.1.3Samplinf strarcfiifor the quahtãtive interviews """"' """' 81 2.1.4Exclusion uiteria..-..""""" """"""" 81 3.0lnstrumentation.... """""""""' 82 3.1 Questionrruir" Development for Employee Survey """""""""" 82 3.2.Pre-testing of the Employee Survey """ 83 3.3 Selection of Su*.y qìesiio"s """""""" 84 3.3.lTheGeneralPerceivedSelf-EfficacyScale(þpendixII)..'........85 3.3.2The Work Environment S'Ltii'l'ppendix III) "' """""""""" 86 3.3.4The Oiganizational Policiæ o)odþroctices Questionnaire (Appendix IV)' " 88 j.3.5 Adaptation of instruments for current study """"' """""""' 91 3.4 Questionnaire Development for Manager Survey ""92 3.5 Qualitative Interview þuestions """""""' """""""" 93 4.0 Survey Administration.....""""""' """""'94 4.1 Use of Mail-in and Telephone Surveys """""""' ""'94 4.2Managing Non-Respondent or Missing Data """"' """"""""""97 5.0 Description of Dependent and Independent variables.............. """"""""" 98 5.1.Dependent Variables in Employee Survey """"""" 98 5.2.Independent Variables in thà Employee Survey """ 98 5.2.1 l4¡orker variables """""" 99 5.2.2 WorlElace variables .-......""'"""""' 99 5.3 Dependent Variables in Manager Survey """""""' 100 5.4.Independent Variables in the I4*ugt' Survey """ 100 5.5 Summary of Study Variables """""""" 101 6.0 A Summary of the Data Analysis Plan""' """""""' 103 6.1 Overall Approach to Analysis of Employe eData"""'""""""" 103 6.1.1Factolanalyses...' """" 104 6.L2 Correlatioi analysls..'......'.."' """" 104 6.1.3Regression analyses .-...--......' """"' 104 Friesen, 2004 vl Worker participation and RTW 6.1.4Between-groups analyses.'.. """""' 104 6.2 OverallApprðach to Analysis of Manager Data...'...... """"""' 1046.3 Analysis óf Qualitative Data."""""""" 105 6.4 Summary of Analysis Plan".""""""""' 106 7.0 Ethical Considerations """"" 111Cna.prBn Foun Rnsulrs """""""" 112 1.0 Employee Survey Results """t12 i.1 Response Rate and Analysis of Non-response.......... """""""" II2 1.2 Descriptive Data... """""""' 1 15 1.3 Exploratory 4na1yses.............. """"""" 118 1.3.1 Bivariate Correlation-.......-"""""" 118 1.3.2Factor Analysis ."""""' I19 1.4 Factor Analyses Preparatory for Prediction Models ............"... 120 i.5 Fit with the Multi-system Model of .Worker Participation and RTW in the Workplace """""""' 122 i.6 Tésting the Models for Prediction of Worker Participation in the Workplace.........'...124 1.7 Between-groups Analyses... """"""""" 127 1.7.1 Time-loss groups """"" 127 1.7.2 lilorþlaci groups.....'....'..... """"" 128 2.0 Manager Surwey tr'ioAiog, ""' 130 2.1 Response Rate "' 130 2.ZDeicriptive Findings....'.".'.... """""""' 131 2.3 Exploratory Analysis .......'.'.... """""""132 2.4 Cimpæison in Types of Worþ1aces......"...... """" 134 2.4.1 Duration of time-loss and cost of W4CB premiums.......'..... 134 2.4.2.Comparison of worlqlace characteristics """ 134 2.4.3Comparison oiworker participation """""""' 135 2.5 Testing the Multi-System Model of Worker Participation and RTW in the Workplacã """""""' 137 2.5.1 Pred¡ctors for average duration of time-loss due to injurymanager data'........ I37 2.5.2Predíctorsfor cost of llCB premiums """"""' 138 3.0 Qualitative Anaþsis Findings................ """"""""" 141 l.i tarticipant Destriptions....-... """""""' 141 3.2 Themes and Issues '....'.......'.""""""""' 145 j.2.J Informationtheme........ """"""""" 146 3.2.2Worker input theme...-.... """""""" 146 3.2.3Choices theme """"""" 147 3.2.4Decisíon-makíng theme...-..'.""""" I4B 3'2'5 other themes """""""" 149 3.3 Summary of Themes........".'.... """"""'152 Cu¿.prnRFryn DIscussloN..... """"' 153 1.0 Discussion of Findings from Employee Data """""' 153 1.1 Exploratory Analyses'.......'.....'."""""" 153 l.l.l Descriptton of employee,ç'......'....... """ """""' 153 Friesen, 2004 vll I\/orlcer ParticiPation and RTW L 1.2 FittviththeModelofWorkerParticipationcmdRTl|¡in the Workplace """"' ""' 154 1'2PredictorsofWorker.Parlicipationinthe.Workplace.....'..'..,...i551.3 Worker Participation Differénces Among Groups """""""""' 159 2.0 Discussion of finOings from Man agerData""""""':"" """""' 160 2.1Typeof Workplace and Average ñuration of Time-loss injuries """"""" 160 2.2predictors foriu"rug" Duration of Time-Loss Injury ............' 161 1r1 2.3 Predictors for Cost of WCB Premium """""""""" rur 3.0 understanding the Nature of worker Participation in RTW """"""""" 162 3.1 Worlcers' lnfluence in the'Workplace and N¿åningful Participation""' "" 163 1rf 3.2Thelmportance of Trustand Respect"""""""" '---""""" ""' ruu 3.3 The t "ar,ring curve in worker piticipation in RTV/ ............. 168 3.4 Structure Facilitates Participation""""""""""

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicOccupational Health and Safety Research→French-language works237,207→