The costs and benefits of active case \nmanagement and rehabilitation for \nmusculoskeletal disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burden of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) to employers and workplaces is significant; and \nthe most important cost to employers and society is lost time from work. \n‘Case management’ is a goal-oriented approach to keeping employees at work and facilitating an \nearly return to work. There is good scientific evidence that case management methods are costeffective \nthrough reducing time off work and lost productivity, and reducing healthcare costs. \nThere is even stronger evidence that best-practice rehabilitation approaches have the very \nimportant potential to significantly reduce the burden of long-term sickness absence due to \nMSDs. The combination of case management with suitable rehabilitation principles is currently \nbeing used effectively in multiple settings throughout the UK, and there is growth within the case \nmanagement sector. Current providers vary widely in quality and experience. There is limited \nprofessional regulation, although localised standards of practice have recently become available. \nMany of the factors influencing the adoption of cost-effective case management and rehabilitation \napproaches rest with employers, and funders/commissioners of healthcare. It may be easier to \nintegrate these practices into large and medium-sized workplaces, but there is no reason why the \nsame principles cannot be applied to small businesses and the self-employed. It appears to be very \ntimely for the distribution of information to employers and other key players about how effective \ncase management and suitable rehabilitation approaches can be, and how applicable they are to \nUK settings. To this end, an integrated model specific to the UK has been developed. \nAn evidence-based model for managing those with MSDs was developed that is widely \napplicable to all types of industry and business in the UK. It describes the principles to apply in \norder to integrate case management and rehabilitation with the workplace. It was derived from \nhigh quality scientific studies, and research conducted into views on the applicability and \neffectiveness within the UK. \nIt is recommended that HSE distribute guidance based on this model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.005 |
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".