Exploring the Associations Among Occupational Balance and Health of Adults With and Without Inflammatory Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Occupational balance is a person's subjective perception of the amount and variation of their everyday activities. Evidence suggests an association between occupational balance and health. However, the impact of arthritis on occupational balance and its association with health is unclear. This exploratory study was undertaken to examine associations between occupational balance and measures of health and between‐group differences in adults with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA). Methods In a cross‐sectional study, participants completed the 11‐item Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ‐11) and the Short Form 36 (SF‐36) health survey (physical and mental component summary scores) and provided demographic information. Telomere lengths were analyzed from dried blood spots. Results A total of 143 adults participated (67 with IA, 76 from the healthy comparison [HC] group). Occupational balance was higher in the HC group than in the IA group (mean difference 3.5 [95% confidence interval 1.0, 5.9; P = 0.01]), but this difference was not statistically significant when adjusted for physical health. The association between occupational balance and physical health was stronger in the IA group (R2 = 0.17, P = 0.001) than in the HC group (R2 = 0.05, P = 0.05). Occupational balance was associated with mental health (R2 = 0.26, P < 0.001) but not associated with telomere length (R2 = 0.02, P = 0.24). Conclusion Occupational balance is associated with mental health for all participants and associated with physical health and disease activity in participants with IA. Attention to assessment of and strategies for improving occupational balance in rehabilitation practice and arthritis self‐management programs may contribute to sustaining physical and mental health.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".