Costs of Workplace Productivity Loss in Patients With Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are highly morbid chronic disorders that frequently occur in working age individuals. The goal of this study was to determine workplace productivity loss, its determinants, and its estimated costs in patients with fibrotic ILD. METHODS: Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, or unclassifiable ILD were identified from the six-center Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis (CARE-PF). The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire was used to determine health-related productivity loss. Independent predictors of low workplace productivity were identified by using multivariate regression. Patient data were compared with Canadian population census data. The average productivity loss (hours per week) and the individual's hourly wage were used to estimate the costs of productivity loss. RESULTS: Of 650 eligible patients, 148 (23%) were employed. Productivity loss was reported by 55% of employed patients with an average productivity loss of 7.8 ± 0.9 h per week (2.3 ± 0.6 h per week related to absenteeism and 5.5 ± 0.6 h per week related to presenteeism). Employment among patients with ILD aged 25 to 54 years was 23% lower than the age- and sex-matched general Canadian population (60% vs 83%; P < .001). Employment among patients with ILD aged ≥ 55 years was 18% lower than in the age- and sex-matched population (20% vs 38%; P < .001). Dyspnea and cough were independent predictors of workplace productivity loss. Estimated annual costs of productivity loss were 11,610 Canadian dollars per employee with ILD. CONCLUSIONS: Workplace productivity loss is common in fibrotic ILD, strongly correlated with symptom severity, and associated with significant cost.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".