MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411431504 · doi:10.1016/j.ard.2025.05.052

OP0386 PREDICTORS OF PRESENTEEISM OVER TIME IN INDIVIDUALS WITH INFLAMMATORY AND NON-INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS

2025· article· en· W4411431504 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanessa G. Macintyre, Annelies Boonen, Diane Lacaille, S. Wilkinson, Mark F. Lunt, S. Shoop-Worrall, J. Canas da Silva, G. Crepaldi, Sabrina Dadoun, Sofia Hagel, Carina Mihai, Sofía Ramiro, Garifallia Sakellariou, S. Meisalu, Johan K. Wallman, S. Verstappen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInflammatory arthritisArthritisPresenteeismInternal medicineInflammationImmunologyPhysical therapyAbsenteeism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→