Employment status, productivity loss, and associated factors among people with multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) affects people in their most productive years of life. Consequently, MS can substantially affect employment and work-related outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study characterizes productivity loss and employment status of people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and investigates associated factors. METHODS: We used baseline data collected as part of the Canadian Prospective Cohort Study to Understand Progression in Multiple Sclerosis (CanProCo). Using the Valuation of Lost Productivity questionnaire, we measured MS-related paid work productivity loss for those employed, productivity losses incurred by those unemployed (i.e. lost employment time), and unpaid work productivity losses for all. A set of sociodemographic, disease, and performance-related factors were investigated using a two-part regression model for productivity loss and a multinomial logistic model for employment status. RESULTS: From the cohort of 888 pwMS enrolled at baseline (mostly showing mild to moderate disability), 75% were employed, and of those unemployed, 69% attributed their unemployment to health-related issues. Total productivity loss over a 3-month period averaged 64 and 395 hours for those employed and unemployed, respectively. Some factors that affected productivity loss and employment status included use of disease-modifying therapies, fatigue, and performance indicators such as cognitive processing speed. CONCLUSION: Productivity loss experienced by employed and unemployed pwMS is substantial. Targeting the identified modifiable factors is likely to improve work productivity and permanence of MS patients in the workforce.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".