I27. BEHAVIOURAL COPING EFFORTS TO MANAGE WORKPLACE ACTIVITY LIMITATIONS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Despite improved treatment, many individuals with inflammatory arthritis (IA) report difficulties working, reduced productivity and elevated absenteeism. Although interventions have begun to address workplace issues facing individuals with IA, few studies have examined existing workplace policies and whether their use is associated with better health and employment outcomes. This research) examined behavioural coping efforts used by individuals to manage health and work difficulties; the availability, need and use of diverse workplace policies, comparing those with arthritis to healthy controls and factors associated with coping efforts, including the intermittent nature of arthritis symptoms, the decision whether to disclose one’s arthritis at work and work–health–life balance. Methods: Data are drawn from three studies of participants living with IA, osteoarthritis (OA) and healthy controls. Two community surveys (total n = 1772) and one qualitative study (n = 40) collected data. Study 1 participants were administered questionnaires on four separate occasions spanning ∼5 years using in-person interviews; study 2 participants were administered on-line questionnaires or surveyed by telephone; qualitative participants participated in one of eight focus groups. All studies assessed demographic (e.g., age, gender), health (e.g., pain, fatigue, workplace activity limitations) and work context (e.g., job sector, hours, physical work) information. Surveys also assessed workplace practices and accommodations (e.g., flexible hours, special equipment, modified duties), psychosocial perceptions (e.g. work–health balance, job stress) and job outcomes (e.g. absenteeism, productivity loss, job disruptions). Results: Respondents working with arthritis reported significantly poorer health (pain, fatigue) than healthy controls. To manage workplace activity limitations, respondents reported a range of coping efforts, including giving up or modifying job activities, anticipating and avoiding problems and getting assistance from colleagues. Approximately, 20% of respondents changed jobs over the course of ∼5 years and 24–45% had not told their employer about their arthritis. Yet, there were few differences in reports of needing or using workplace policies compared to healthy controls and many individuals delayed using workplace accommodations until symptoms were consistently severe. Participants with arthritis who had unmet accommodation needs reported greater work stress, fatigue, workplace activity limitations, health variability, productivity loss and job disruptions. Respondents who drew upon workplace policies in advance of a problem or crisis had the lowest levels of fatigue, activity limitations, productivity loss and job disruptions. Conclusion: Despite poorer health, respondents with arthritis often did not take advantage of available workplace policies and many were reluctant to disclose activity limitations at work. Yet using accommodations, even when not needed, was associated with better health and work outcomes. These results need to be replicated. They point to potential benefits of more proactive use of work policies to manage arthritis and employment. Disclosure statement: M.G.: Grants/research support: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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 | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 ».