Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number and cost of asthma-related productivity loss days due to absenteeism and presenteeism (at work but not fully functioning) in Alberta in 2005. METHODS: Using data from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey, this study focused on people of working age (18-64 years), who reported having an asthma diagnosis. Total asthma-related disability days, including in-bed days and activity-restricted days, were estimated by multiplying the difference in the means of total disability days between asthmatics and nonasthmatics adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and other health conditions by a multiple linear regression, with the number of asthmatics in the population. Number of productivity loss days was a sum between the number of in-bed days (absenteeism) and the number of activity-restricted days multiplied by a reduction in functional level (presenteeism), adjusted for five working days per week. Other data from Alberta or Canadian published literature, such as a reduction in functional level of 20%-30%, a labor participation rate of 73%, and an average wage of $158 per day in 2005, were also used for analyses. RESULTS: The prevalence of asthma was estimated at 8.5% among approximately 2.1 million people of working age in Alberta in 2005. The difference in the means of total disability days between asthmatics and nonasthmatics was 0.487 (95% CI: 0.286-0.688) in a period of two weeks or 12.7 (7.5-17.9) in one year. With the reduction in functional level of 20%-30%, the number of asthma-related productivity loss days was estimated from 442 (259-624) to 533 (313-753) thousand, respectively. The corresponding cost was from $70 ($41-$99) to $84 ($49-$119) million. Of these, the presenteeism accounted for 42% to 52%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that an improvement in the controlling of asthma could have a significant economic impact in Alberta and that presenteeism plays an important role in asthma-related productivity losses and therefore employers should not only pay attention to absenteeism, but also to presenteeism to minimize productivity loss.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".