Managing arthritis and employment: Making arthritis‐related work changes as a means of adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand arthritis-related workplace changes, including occasional work loss and changes to the type and hours of work, and the factors associated with them using theories of adaptation and behavior change as a framework. METHODS: Participants were 492 employed individuals with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. They completed an interview-administered, structured questionnaire assessing demographic, workplace, and psychosocial variables, as well as such work transitions as changes to the hours, type, and nature of work. Hypotheses were examined using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Seventy percent of respondents made at least 1 work change. Younger participants and those with greater workplace activity limitations reported more changes. Work changes were associated with greater depression. A hypothesized 3-way interaction among people's perceptions of their capacity, their future job expectations, and whether they had told their employer about their arthritis was significant. CONCLUSION: This study extends arthritis employment research by examining a range of work changes. It highlights the dynamic interplay among arthritis, workplace, and psychosocial variables to understand adaptation to arthritis disability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".