Job Accommodations Availability and Utilization Among People With Lupus: An Examination of Workplace Activity Limitations and Work Context Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the availability of diverse job accommodations (or flexible working arrangements) and to describe their use among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), as well as to examine factors associated with the use of job accommodations. METHODS: A mail survey was sent to adult lupus patients receiving care from a lupus clinic based in Toronto, Canada. The survey assessed demographic information, self-reported disease activity, work history, workplace activity limitations, job strain, and the availability and use of job accommodations. Standard multivariable linear regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with the use of job accommodations. RESULTS: We received 362 responses of 604 mailed surveys (60% response rate). Participants who were employed within the last 5 years, but who were not currently working, were less likely than currently employed participants to report having had job accommodations available to them at their last place of employment. The use of job accommodations was reported by 70% of currently employed respondents and by 72% of those not currently employed. The most common job accommodation used was sick leave days. Factors positively associated with the use of job accommodations among those who were employed included higher levels of education, being diagnosed with fibromyalgia, at least 1 episode of short-term work disability, not belonging to a union, greater workplace activity limitations, and greater job strain. CONCLUSION: The use of job accommodations among people with lupus is common. Work context factors, such as workplace activity limitations and job strain, are the main factors associated with the use of job accommodations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".