Work Productivity Impairment in Persons with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] on work productivity remains unclear. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we quantify work-related outcomes and employment data among persons with IBD. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, Scopus, ProQuest, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to February 2023, to identify studies on work productivity in persons with IBD aged > 18 years. Work productivity was defined primarily by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment [WPAI] questionnaire which includes absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and non-work activity impairment. In addition, we included data on employment, sick leaves, disability pensions, and indirect costs due to productivity loss. Pooled effect analysis was conducted using a random-effects model for pooled estimates of continuous and proportional data with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Among all patients with IBD, the pooled estimates were 16.4% for absenteeism, 35.9% for presenteeism, 39.4% for overall work impairment, and 46.0% for non-work activity impairment. Indirect costs from overall work impairment were 5131.09 euros/patient/year. Only two-thirds of IBD patients were employed, and one in three lost their jobs due to IBD. Among those employed, 39.5% report sick days, 21.3% report work disability, and 12.3% receive disability pensions. Most studies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in work productivity with medical and/or surgical therapies. CONCLUSION: Persons with IBD experience significant work impairment and associated indirect costs. This highlights the need for appropriate workplace accommodations and timely medical therapy to alleviate the burden of disease and improve work outcomes.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".