Supporting Arthritis and Employment Across the Life Course: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the need for and availability and use of formal and informal workplace resources and to uncover differences across the life course in adults with arthritis. METHODS: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with young (aged 18-34 years; n = 7), middle-aged (35-54 years; n = 13), and older adults (≥55 years; n = 25) with a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, or other rheumatic disease. Participants were asked about their employment experiences, formal and informal workplace resource needs, and availability and use of workplace resources. Differences based on chronological, functional, psychosocial, organizational, and lifespan dimensions of age were examined. A modified grounded theory approach was used to inductively analyze the data. RESULTS: Young, middle-aged, and older adult participants required similar workplace resources. Across all participants, scheduling modifications tended to be the most needed workplace resource. In contrast, the perceived availability and use of formal workplace resources differed among participants. Young adult participants and those who were newer to their jobs reported that workplace resources were less available and utilized. Middle-aged and older adults reported greater availability of workplace resources. Scheduling accommodations and at-work modifications were the workplace resources that were used most by middle-aged and older adults, respectively. CONCLUSION: Similar workplace resources could meet the employment needs of individuals with arthritis across the life course. Attention should be paid to young adults and those who are new to their jobs, because they may perceive more barriers to accessing formal workplace resources and be susceptible to work disability.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".