A proof‐of‐concept study of the “employment and arthritis: Making it work” program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Work disability is a common outcome of inflammatory arthritis (IA), yet few services address employment. We conducted a proof-of-concept study of the "Employment and Arthritis: Making It Work" self-management program aimed at preventing work disability and maintaining at-work productivity in employed people with IA. METHODS: The program was developed using the precede-proceed model and self-management concepts. Program goals included modifying risk factors for work disability and enhancing self-management of work problems due to IA, as identified in initial focus groups. The program included a self-learning manual, 5 group sessions, and individual visits with an occupational therapist for an ergonomic assessment and a vocational rehabilitation counselor. It was pilot tested in 2 groups (n = 19) and evaluated over 12 months of followup. RESULTS: Participants consisted of 19 employed women with IA. Process evaluation demonstrated feasibility and excellent attendance and use of the self-learning manual. By 1 year, 80% reported increased confidence in requesting job accommodations, 74% had requested an accommodation, and 71% of requested accommodations were implemented. The occupational therapist and vocational rehabilitation counselor visits resulted in recommendations for change in 100% and 74% of participants, respectively, with implementation of some recommended changes in 89% and 63%, respectively. Improvements were observed in self-confidence in managing problems at work, fatigue interference with work, measures of limitations, and at-work productivity. CONCLUSION: We developed a novel intervention to prevent work disability in patients with IA, combining self-management group sessions and professional assessments aimed at job retention, which resulted in people making changes to adapt their work to their arthritis, and improved fatigue, self-efficacy, and at-work productivity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".