MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047275686 · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.115

Impact of hidradenitis suppurativa on work productivity and associated risk factors

2020· article· en· W3047275686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelsey R. van Straalen, Lisette M. Prens, Tjerk H. Hylkema, Ineke C. Janse, J. C. Dickinson, Ronald H Houwing, Hessel H. van der Zee, Sandra Brouwer, Errol P. Prens, Barbara Horváth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFeinstein Institutes for Medical ResearchUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenAmgenNational Psoriasis FoundationNational Institutes of HealthNorthwell HealthIncyte
KeywordsHidradenitis suppurativaMedicineWork productivityDermatologyProductivityInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Matusiak et al1Matusiak Ł. Bieniek A. Szepietowski J.C. Hidradenitis suppurativa markedly decreases quality of life and professional activity.J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010; 62: 706-708Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (142) Google Scholar showed that hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) caused absenteeism in 58.1% of patients. However, work impairment due to HS is not limited to absenteeism but could also lead to presenteeism (reduced productivity while at work) and at-work productivity loss (absenteeism plus presenteeism). Knowledge of which HS-related factors are associated with absenteeism, presenteeism, and at-work productivity loss is essential. Therefore, we aimed to assess differences between working and nonworking patients with HS; quantify absenteeism, presenteeism, and at-work productivity loss caused by HS; and identify associated risk factors. All newly referred consecutive patients participating in the HiCARE (METc 2018/110), HiSure (METc 2015/074), and HiScreen (MEC-2016-246) registries between April 2015 and July 2019 were included. Patient characteristics, disease severity, patient-reported outcomes, and comorbidities were collected, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, specific health problem version, was used to assess the influence of HS on absenteeism, presenteeism, and at-work productivity loss. See the Supplemental Methods (available via Mendeley at https://doi.org/10.17632/6nmk748p89.1) for details on the between-group analyses, multiple imputations, and regression analyses. Overall, 62.0% (523/843) of patients had work at the time of inclusion. The presence of inguinal/gluteal HS, increased HS severity, higher pain scores, the presence of fibromyalgia, and higher depression and anxiety scores were significantly more common in nonworkers (Table I). Twenty-six percent of working patients reported actual work time missed, with a median absenteeism of 0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0-5.3). Workers reported a median presenteeism due to HS of 20% (95% CI, 0.0-50.0) and a median at-work productivity loss of 20.0% (95% CI, 0.0-69.0). Results from the univariate regressions analyses are presented in Supplemental Table I (available via Mendeley at https://doi.org/10.17632/6nmk748p89.1). Pain, Dermatology Life Quality Index, and EuroQol–5 Dimensions scores were significantly associated with presenteeism and at-work productivity loss in the multivariate regression models (Table II).Table IPatient characteristics∗Numbers and percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding of pooled data.Overall†Percentages in this column are reported as percentages of the overall number of patients. (N = 843)Workers‡Percentages in these columns are presented as percentages of the variable on that row. (n = 523)Nonworkers‡Percentages in these columns are presented as percentages of the variable on that row. (n = 320)P value§P-value calculated between workers and nonworkers.Patient characteristics SexFemale, n (%)604 (71.6)373 (61.8)231 (38.2).79 Age, y, mean (SD)38.0 (12.2)37.3 (11.3)39.0 (13.6).06 Age at onset, y, median (IQR)20.0 (15.0-27.0)20.0 (15.0-27.0)19.0 (15.0-28.0).62Missing, n271512 Disease duration, y, median (IQR)12.5 (6.0-22.0)12.8 (6.5-21.0)12.1 (5.1-25.3).51Missing, n271512 BMI, kg/m2, mean (SD)28.7 (6.3)28.5 (6.1)29.1 (6.5).23 Current or ex-smoker, n (%)643 (76.3)390 (60.7)253 (39.3).16 Positive family history121 (23.8)92 (76.0)29 (24.0)<.001Unknown, n (%)115 (22.6)64 (55.7)51 (44.3)Missing, n335195180 Education level, n (%)Low148 (17.6)65 (43.9)83 (56.1)Medium483 (57.3)300 (62.1)183 (37.9)High212 (25.1)158 (74.5)54 (25.5)<.0001Comorbidities Rheumatoid arthritis, n (%)25 (4.2)12 (48.0)13 (52.0).08Missing, n241134107 Fibromyalgia, n (%)9 (1.5)2 (22.2)7 (77.8).008Missing, n242138104 Spondyloarthritis, n (%)5 (0.9)5 (100.0)0 (0.0)NPMissing, n286139147 Crohn's disease, n (%)35 (5.8)19 (54.3)16 (45.7).18Missing, n240133107 Ulcerative colitis, n (%)5 (0.8)3 (60.0)2 (40.0).82Missing, n247137110 Psoriasis, n (%)37 (6.2)20 (54.1)17 (45.9).17Missing, n247139108 Previous depression, n (%)119 (19.3)53 (44.5)66 (55.5)<.0001Missing, n22613492Physician scores Hurley classification, n (%)Stage I390 (46.3)242 (62.1)148 (37.9).18Stage II368 (43.7)224 (60.9)144 (39.1)Stage III85 (10.0)57 (67.1)28 (32.9) Refined Hurley, n (%)Mild (IA, IIA)363 (43.1)227 (61.2)137 (37.7)Moderate (IB, IIB)195 (23.1)132 (77.4)63 (32.3)Severe (IC, IIC, III)285 (33.8)164 (57.5)120 (42.1).003 IHS4, mean (SD)9.4 (15.3)9.5 (17.0)9.1 (11.9).66Mild, n (%)366 (43.4)223 (60.9)144 (39.3).53Moderate, n (%)232 (27.5)151 (65.1)81 (34.9)Severe, n (%)245 (29.1)150 (61.2)96 (39.2) Presence of draining sinus tracts, n (%)349 (41.4)217 (62.2)132 (37.8).94 Affected locations, n (%)Axillae295 (35.0)192 (65.1)102 (34.6).15Groin/buttocks510 (60.5)298 (58.4)212 (41.6).008Patient-reported outcome measures DLQI, mean (SD)11.5 (7.6)10.8 (7.3)12.6 (8.0)<.001 EQ-5D-5 Level, median (IQR)0.75 (0.62-0.84)0.77 (0.66-0.87)0.69 (0.49-0.81)<.001Missing, n278156122 EQ-5D VAS, median (IQR)70.0 (51.0-80.0)70.0 (60.0-80.0)60.0 (45.0-75.0)<.001Missing, n263147116 NRS Pain, mean (SD)5.3 (3.0)5.2 (2.9)5.6 (3.0).04 NRS Pruritus, mean (SD)4.1 (3.0)3.8 (2.9)4.6 (3.1)<.001 NRS Severity, mean (SD)6.0 (2.8)5.8 (2.7)6.2 (2.8).09 HADS Depression, median (IQR)5.0 (2.0-9.0)3.0 (1.0-6.0)8.0 (3.0-11.0)<.001Missing, n481307174 HADS Anxiety, median (IQR)6.0 (3.0-10.0)5.0 (3.0-8.0)8.0 (4.0-12.0)<.001Missing, n481307174BMI, Body mass index; DLQI, Dermatology Life Quality Index; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Survey; EQ-5D, EuroQol–5 Dimensions; IHS4, International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System; IQR, interquartile range; NRS, numeric rating scale; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale.Bold data indicates statistical significance.∗ Numbers and percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding of pooled data.† Percentages in this column are reported as percentages of the overall number of patients.‡ Percentages in these columns are presented as percentages of the variable on that row.§ P-value calculated between workers and nonworkers. Open table in a new tab Table IIMultivariate∗All multivariate models were corrected for sex, age, BMI, smoking, educational level, and smoking status. linear and logistic regression analysesAssessmentAbsenteeismPresenteeismAt-work productivity lossnBOR (95% CI)P valuenB (95% CI)P valuenB (95% CI)P valueIHS43050.320 (−0.001 to 0.641).051DLQI score3160.0761.079 (1.024 to 1.137).0043021.720 (1.235 to 2.205)<.0013051.904 (1.335 to 2.473)<.001EQ-5D index score316−1.7030.182 (0.030 to 1.111).065302−23.147 (−40.483 to −5.811).009305−29.222 (−49.592 to −8.853).005NRS Pain3160.1461.157 (1.022 to 1.311).0213022.446 (1.464 to 3.428)<.0013052.373 (1.189 to 3.556)<.001CI, Confidence interval; DLQI, Dermatology Life Quality Index; EQ-5D, EuroQol–5 Dimensions; IHS4, International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System; NRS, numeric rating scale; OR, odds ratio.∗ All multivariate models were corrected for sex, age, BMI, smoking, educational level, and smoking status. Open table in a new tab BMI, Body mass index; DLQI, Dermatology Life Quality Index; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Survey; EQ-5D, EuroQol–5 Dimensions; IHS4, International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System; IQR, interquartile range; NRS, numeric rating scale; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analogue scale. Bold data indicates statistical significance. CI, Confidence interval; DLQI, Dermatology Life Quality Index; EQ-5D, EuroQol–5 Dimensions; IHS4, International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System; NRS, numeric rating scale; OR, odds ratio. The level of absenteeism found in our study seems to be slightly lower than that found in a Danish study and substantially lower than that found in a Canadian study: 7.0% ± 21.2% and 14.5% ± 27.0%, respectively.2Yao Y. Jørgensen A.R. Thomsen S.F. Work productivity and activity impairment in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa: a cross-sectional study.Int J Dermatol. 2020; 59: 333-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar,3Sandhu V.K. Shah M. Piguet V. Alavi A. The impact of Hidradenitis suppurativa on work productivity and activity impairment.Br J Dermatol. 2020; 182: 1288-1290Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar One explanation could be the larger proportion of nonworking patients in our study. In The Netherlands (and Denmark), adequate unemployment benefits are provided, which might lead to a higher percentage of nonworking patients and potentially lower levels of absenteeism among those still at work. This highlights that unemployment and work productivity data among patients with HS should be interpreted and extrapolated with caution because the results are highly influenced by the work climate and access to unemployment benefits in the study country. Nonetheless, the factors associated with nonwork and at-work productivity loss in our study are modifiable through medical and/or surgical treatment, which could have a favorable effect on work status and productivity. However, this cross-sectional study does not allow for the assessment of causality in the found associations. Overall, this study shows that several potentially modifiable factors such as inguinal/gluteal involvement, more severe disease, and higher depression and anxiety scores are more common among nonworkers. Additionally, among working patients, pain and quality of life are associated with at-work productivity loss. This indicates the need for adequate treatment and pain management to limit work absence and reduce at-work productivity loss among patients with HS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of DermatologySame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207