The impact of body mass index (<scp>BMI</scp>) on satisfaction with work life: An international <scp>BODY‐Q</scp> study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is a global health issue known to have a major influence on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). HR-QOL is a concept evaluating physical and psychological health. Work life can impact HR-QOL in people with obesity. The aim of this study was to measure the association between body mass index (BMI) and satisfaction with work life. This study included participants from an international multicenter field-test study of BODY-Q scales. Recruitment took place at hospitals in Denmark, The Netherlands and USA between June 2019 and January 2020. The BODY-Q Work Life scale was used to measure work life satisfaction. The difference between BMI groups and work life satisfaction was examined using one-way analysis of variance. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between BMI and work life satisfaction, adjusted for significant confounders. Of 4123 participants, 2515 completed the BODY-Q Work Life scale. BMI groups showed significant difference in work life satisfaction (p < .0001). The Work Life scale mean score was 77.6 for the normal BMI group, 78.5 for the overweight group and 75.0, 68.9 and 63.8 for Class 1, 2 and 3 obesity, respectively. Furthermore, BMI was significantly associated with satisfaction with work life (adjusted regression coefficient -.962, p < .0001). Higher BMI was associated with lower work life satisfaction. This finding suggests that a reduction in BMI may have a positive influence on work life satisfaction in people with obesity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it