Changes in work and adequacy of financial resources during COVID-19 among people with systemic sclerosis: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/objective: We investigated (1) work status changes during COVID-19, (2) financial resource adequacy, (3) preferences for work requirements (e.g. remote, workplace, mixed) and (4) work requirements versus preferences, among people with systemic sclerosis. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of participants in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Cohort, which enrolled participants from the ongoing Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort and externally in April 2020. In August 2022, participants completed questions on work status, financial well-being using the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Financial Well-Being Scale, work requirements and work requirement preferences. Results: A total of 298 participants with systemic sclerosis were included. Mean age was 58.6 years (SD = 11.4). There were 101 (34%) participants working at the start of the pandemic and still working in August 2022, 179 (60%) not working at the start of the pandemic and still not working, 10 (3%) who stopped working after April 2020 and 8 (3%) who started working. Mean financial well-being did not change from April 2020 to August 2022 (difference: 0.2 points; 95% confidence interval: -1.1 to 0.7). Working participants (N = 109) preferred flexible work requirements (N = 34, 31%) or working entirely remotely (N = 32, 29%), but most were required to work entirely at a workplace (N = 35, 32%) or combined workplace and remotely with a fixed schedule (N = 31, 28%). Conclusion: Work status and financial well-being did not change substantively among people with systemic sclerosis during the pandemic. Flexible work policies may support people with systemic sclerosis to work.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".