Severity of anxiety and work-related outcomes of patients with anxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined associations between anxiety and work-related outcomes in an anxiety disorders clinic population, examining both pretreatment links and the impact of anxiety change over 12 weeks of treatment on work outcomes. Four validated instruments were used to also allow examination of their psychometric properties, with the goal of improving measurement of work-related quality of life in this population. METHODS: Newly enrolled adult patients seeking treatment in a university-based anxiety clinic were administered four work performance measures: Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS), and Functional Status Questionnaire Work Performance Scale (WPS). Anxiety severity was determined using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). The Clinical Global Impressions, Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I) was completed by patients to evaluate symptom change at a 12-week follow-up. Two severity groups (minimal/mild vs. moderate/severe, based on baseline BAI score) were compared to each other on work measures. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients provided complete baseline data. Anxiety severity groups did not differ in job type, time on job, job satisfaction, or job choice. Patients with greater anxiety generally showed lower work performance on all instruments. Job advancement was impaired for the moderate/severe group. The multi-item performance scales demonstrated better validity and internal consistency. The WLQ and the WPAI detected change with symptom improvement. CONCLUSION: Level of work performance was generally associated with severity of anxiety. Of the instruments tested, the WLQ and the WPAI questionnaire demonstrated acceptable validity and internal reliability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".