Association between work time loss and quality of life in patients with Herpes Zoster: a pooled analysis of the MASTER studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster (HZ) has a significant negative effect on the productive work life of individuals, and has been shown to be responsible for cases of absenteeism, presenteeism and decreased work effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate health utility scores and associated predictors in an actively employed population of Herpes Zoster (HZ) patients with and without work time loss (WTL). METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of the prospective, observational MASTER cohort studies, conducted in 8 countries across North America, Latin America and Asia. A total of 428 HZ patients engaged in full or part time work were included. WTL, defined as missing ≥ 1 partial or full work day, and work effectiveness, reported on a scale of 0-100%, were evaluated with the Work and Productivity Questionnaire (WPQ). The Pearson product-moment correlation was used to assess the correlation between work effectiveness and HRQoL. Mixed models with repeated measures assessed the relationship between HZ-related WTL over a 6-month follow-up period, and HRQoL, as evaluated by the EQ-5D. Additional predictors of HRQoL were also identified. RESULTS: Overall, 57.7% of respondents reported WTL. Mean (SD) percent work effectiveness of patients in the WTL group was significantly lower compared to non-WTL (NWTL) patients at baseline [50.3 (31.6) vs. 71.4 (27.8); p < 0.001]. Patients in the WTL group also reported lower health utility scores at baseline and overall than their NWTL counterparts, with WTL identified as an independent negative predictor of both the EQ-5D summary scores and the EQ-5D VAS (p < 0.001). Decrease in work effectiveness was negatively associated with HRQoL overall (p < 0.001). Predictors of lower HRQoL were worst Zoster Brief Pain Inventory (ZBPI) pain score, the presence of HZ complications and country income (predictor of EQ-5D VAS only). CONCLUSIONS: HZ adversely impacts the work and productive life of actively employed individuals. In turn, HZ-related reductions in work effectiveness and work time are associated with a negative effect on HRQoL.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".