OP0386 PREDICTORS OF PRESENTEEISM OVER TIME IN INDIVIDUALS WITH INFLAMMATORY AND NON-INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Work productivity is an important health outcome for people with rheumatic diseases and has economic consequences for the wider society. Several different outcome measurement instruments have been developed to measure work productivity loss (presenteeism). However, few studies have investigated predictors of presenteeism or included multiple presenteeism measures, so data on the impact of contextual factors on presenteeism is limited. Objectives: In this international study we aimed to identify possible factors associated with different measures of presenteeism over time in individuals with inflammatory and non-inflammatory arthritis in Europe and Canada. Methods: This three-month, longitudinal, international (UK, Estonia, Romania, Italy, France, Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands, and Canada) observational study (EULAR-PRO) investigated presenteeism. Adults with inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, or psoriatic arthritis) or osteoarthritis in paid employment were included. Data was collected on demographic characteristics (e.g. age), disease characteristics (e.g. pain), and work-related variables (e.g. job type). Presenteeism was assessed at multiple time points following recruitment from clinics (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12 weeks), applying four outcome measures: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Worker Productivity Scale-Arthritis (WPS-RA), Work Ability Index (WAI), and Quality and Quantity (QQ) questionnaire. WAI and WPS-RA scores range from 0-10, whereas WPAI and QQ scores range from 0-100. Multivariable, non-parametric maximum likelihood estimation was applied to estimate the association between baseline variables and presenteeism over time in separate models for each presenteeism measure, adjusting for country and arthritis type. For each measure variables were selected based on univariable results and previous research. Results: The total population (N = 554) comprised 62% female participants with a mean age of 48 (SD = 10.1) and disease duration of 11 years (SD = 9.5). Of these participants, 510 (92%) had inflammatory arthritis and 101 (18%) had two or more comorbid conditions. The mean percentage of time missed from work due to ill health was 7% (SD = 19.9). Table 1 shows the results for each presenteeism measure. The following variables significantly predicted more presenteeism over time: Higher Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and pain scores (all four outcome measures); higher Rheumatology Attitudes Index (RAI) scores (WPAI, WPS-RA, and WAI); very/extremely demanding work (WPAI and WPS-RA); technical (QQ) and routine job types (WPAI and QQ); never being able to organise one's work (QQ). Conversely, feeling satisfied about one's current condition predicted less presenteeism (WAI). Conclusion: Numerous disease-related and work-related factors impact presenteeism. Functional ability, health-related quality of life and pain predict more presenteeism over time, regardless of how presenteeism is assessed. This study highlights the importance of tailored interventions to reduce presenteeism in the workplace. REFERENCES: NIL . Table 1Predictors of presenteeism assessed by the WPAI, WPS-RA, WAI, and QQ using multivariable, non-parametric maximum likelihood estimationOutcome measureWPAIWPS-RAWAIQQPredictorβ (95% CI)β (95% CI)β (95% CI)β (95% CI)Age (years)0.0 (-0.2, 0.2)0.0 (-0.0, 0.0)-0.0 (-0.0, 0.1)-0.1 (-0.1, 0.0)Male gender1.3 (-2.1, 4.6)-0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)-0.1 (-0.4, 0.2)-0.0 (-2.0, 1.9)HAQ12.6 (7.4, 17.3)1.4 (0.9, 2.0)-0.8 (-1.3, -0.4)-5.8 (-8.5, -3.0)RAI1.0 (0.5, 1.4)0.1 (0.0, 0.1)-0.1 (-0.1, -0.4)-0.0 (-0.3, 0.3)One vs no comorbid conditions ≥ 2 vs no comorbid conditions-1.3 (-5.0, 2.4) -1.2 (-5.9, 3.6)-0.1 (-0.4, 0.3) -0.3 (-0.9, 0.2)0.1 (-0.2, 0.4) -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)1.1 (-1.1, 3.3) 0.2 (-2.3, 2.7)Pain VAS4.4 (3.4, 5.4)0.5 (0.3, 0.6)-0.1 (-0.2, -0.1)-0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)Considers vs does not consider current condition satisfactory-1.3 (-5.9, 3.3)0.2 (-0.4, 0.8)0.6 (0.2, 1.0)0.4 (-2.6, 3.3)Technical vs managerial/professional jobs Routine vs managerial/professional jobs1.5 (-2.3, 5.2) 5.7 (0.7, 10.7)-0.0 (-0.5, 0.5) 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)-0.2 (-0.5, 0.1) -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)-2.4 (-4.7, -0.1)-3.8 (-6.3, -1.4)Demanding vs undemanding work Extremely demanding vs undemanding work4.4 (-0.0, 8.7) 5.5 (0.7, 10.2)0.3 (-0.2, 0.8) 0.6 (0.1, 1.0)NANANeither satisfied nor dissatisfied about work vs very satisfied Very unsatisfied vs very satisfied about work-0.2 (-4.9, 4.60) -1.00 (-6.0, 4.0)0.0 (-0.5, 0.6) 0.2 (-0.4, 0.7)-0.2 (-0.6, 0.2) -0.1 (-0.6, 0.3)2.3 (-0.2, 4.7) -1.2 (-4.1, 1.7)Sometimes vs often able to postpone work tasks Never vs often able to postpone work tasks-1.8 (-6.4, 2.9) -4.0 (-9.8, 1.8)-0.3 (-0.8, 0.1) -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)NANASometimes vs often able to organise own work Never vs often able to organise own work1.6 (-2.3, 5.6) 1.9 (-4.7, 8.6)0.1 (-0.4, 0.5) 0.3 (-0.4, 1.0)-0.3 (-0.6, 0.1) 0.2 (-0.4, 0.8)-1.1 (-3.2, 1.1) -3.9 (-6.9, -0.9)WPAI: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire; WPS-RA: Work Productivity Scale–Rheumatoid Arthritis; WAI: Work Ability Index; QQ: Quality and Quantity questionnaire; HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire; RAI: Rheumatology Attitudes Index; VAS: Visual analogue scale; β: Coefficient; CI: Confidence interval; NA: Not applicable – not included in multivariable model due to being nonsignificant in univariable model. Higher scores indicate worse presenteeism on the WPAI and WPS-RA and less presenteeism on the QQ and WAI. N=488 in each model due to listwise deletion of cases with missing data. Significant results are highlighted in bold. Acknowledgements: The EULAR-PRO study was funded by EULAR. Disclosure of Interests: Vanessa G Macintyre: None declared, Annelies Boonen Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Galapagos, Eli-Lilly, Abbvie, Diane Lacaille: None declared, Sarah Wilkinson: None declared, Mark Lunt: None declared, Stephanie Shoop-Worrall: None declared, José Canas da Silva: None declared, Gloria Crepaldi: None declared, Sabrina Dadoun: None declared, Sofia Hagel: None declared, Carina Mihai Speaker fees from MED Talks Switzerland, Medbase, Mepha, MedTrix, Novartis, PlayToKnow, Consultancy relationship with Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen, Support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sofia Ramiro Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos/Alfasigma, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi, AbbVie, Galapagos/Alfasigma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Garifallia Sakellariou Abbvie, Alfasigma, Sandra Meisalu Abbvie, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, Fresenius Kabi, Johan K Wallman AbbVie, Amgen, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, S. Verstappen BMS and AbbVie. © The Authors 2025. This abstract is an open access article published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Neither EULAR nor the publisher make any representation as to the accuracy of the content. The authors are solely responsible for the content in their abstract including accuracy of the facts, statements, results, conclusion, citing resources etc.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".