Validity of the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire - general health version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire is a well validated instrument to measure impairments in work and activities. However, its validation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has not been well established. The present study's purpose is to evaluate the construct validity of the WPAI-general health version among RA patients and its ability to differentiate between RA patients with varying health status. METHODS: Patients who were enrolled in the Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Network cohort and were employed at their most recent follow-up were recruited into this sub-study. A questionnaire battery incorporating the WPAI was administered along with a number of health outcomes including the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire, fatigue and patient assessment of disease activity. The construct validity of the WPAI was tested by the correlations between the WPAI and the health outcomes and other measures of productivity. Student's t tests were used to identify whether the WPAI outcomes differed between the two levels of heath status based on the median of health outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients completed the WPAI questionnaire. The average age was 52 years old and the disease duration was 37.5 months since the first rheumatology visit. Of the 137 patients who were working for pay, 26 reported missing work in the past week due to their health problem, accounting for 45.5% of their working time (absenteeism). While 123 patients were working, 24% of their work was impaired due to their health problem (presenteeism). In addition, 33% of the patients' regular daily activities (activity impairment) had been prevented due to their health problems. There were moderate correlations between the WPAI absenteeism and function, pain, fatigue, and disease severity (r = 0.34 to 0.39). The WPAI presenteeism and activity impairment were strongly correlated with the health outcomes (0.67 to 0.77). Patients with more severe disease status (for example, low/high functional disability by median) had significantly higher absenteeism (4%/15%), presenteeism (15%/39%), and activity impairment (19%/53%) than those with less severe disease status. CONCLUSIONS: The WPAI is a valid questionnaire for assessing impairments in paid work and activities in RA patients and for measuring the relative differences between RA patients with different health status.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».