Productivity loss among people with early multiple sclerosis: A Canadian study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyze work productivity loss and costs, including absenteeism (time missed from work), presenteeism (reduced productivity while working), and unpaid work loss, among a sample of employed people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) in Canada, as well as its association with clinical, sociodemographic, and work-related factors. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data collected as part of the Canadian Prospective Cohort Study to Understand Progression in MS (CanProCo) and information from the Valuation of Lost Productivity questionnaire. RESULTS: Among 512 pwMS who were employed, 97% showed no or mild disability and 55% experienced productivity loss due to MS in the prior 3 months. Total productivity time loss over a 3-month period averaged 60 hours (SD = 107; 23 from presenteeism, 19 from absenteeism, and 18 from unpaid work), leading to a mean cost of lost productivity of CAD$2480 (SD = 4282) per patient, with an hourly paid productivity loss greater than the wage loss. Fatigue retained significant associations with all productivity loss outcomes. CONCLUSION: Unpaid work loss and productivity losses exceeding those of the employee alone (due to teamwork and associated factors) are key additional contributors of the high economic burden of MS. Workplace accommodations and treatments targeted at fatigue could lessen the economic impact of MS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".