Managing arthritis and employment: Making arthritis‐related work changes as a means of adaptation

Self Cite

Objective. The aim of this study was to examine the availability of diverse job accommodations (or flexible working arrangements) and to describe their use among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), as well as to examine factors associated with the use of job accommodations. Methods. A mail survey was sent to adult lupus patients receiving care from a lupus clinic based in Toronto, Canada. The survey assessed demographic information, self-reported disease activity, work history, workplace activity limitations, job strain, and the availability and use of job accommodations. Standard multivariable linear regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with the use of job accommodations. Results. We received 362 responses of 604 mailed surveys (60% response rate). Participants who were employed within the last 5 years, but who were not currently working, were less likely than currently employed participants to report having had job accommodations available to them at their last place of employment. The use of job accommodations was reported by 70% of currently employed respondents and by 72% of those not currently employed. The most common job accommodation used was sick leave days. Factors positively associated with the use of job accommodations among those who were employed included higher levels of education, being diagnosed with fibromyalgia, at least 1 episode of short-term work disability, not belonging to a union, greater workplace activity limitations, and greater job strain. Conclusion. The use of job accommodations among people with lupus is common. Work context factors, such as workplace activity limitations and job strain, are the main factors associated with the use of job accommodations.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Significance and Innovationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Job Accommodations Availability and Utilization Among People With Lupus: An Examination of Workplace Activity Limitations and Work Context Factors

Dhanhani

Gignac

Beaton

et al. 2015

Self Cite

Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at‐work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis

Beaton¹,

Tang²,

Gignac³

et al. 2009

Self Cite

120

Objective. Arthritis often impacts a worker's ability to be productive while at work. However, the ideal approach to measuring arthritis-attributable at-work productivity loss remains unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of 5 measures aimed at quantifying health-related at-work productivity loss and to determine the best available instrument for this population. Methods. In a 12-month longitudinal design, the psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of 5 self-reported measures of at-work productivity were compared in workers with either rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or osteoarthritis (OA). We tested the Workplace Activity Limitations Scale (WALS), 6-item Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6), Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS), RA Work Instability Scale (WIS), and Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ). Results. Across all measures, participants (n ‫؍‬ 250, 120 with RA and 130 with OA) consistently reported mild losses of at-work productivity. The Cronbach's alpha of the scales ranged from 0.71 (for SPS-6) to 0.94 (for EWPS), indicating some concerns over the internal consistency of the SPS-6. The RA WIS demonstrated the strongest construct validity (|r| ‫؍‬ 0.54 -0.74), whereas the WALS was most responsive to perceived changes in work ability. Despite its increasing popularity and potential application for costing analysis, the WLQ did not compare favorably with the other scales, possibly due to psychometric concerns with its physical demands subscale. Conclusion. Measures revealed unique conceptualization of at-work disability, but no single scale emerged as clearly superior. However, current results slightly favor the WALS and RA WIS as superior instruments for measuring at-work productivity loss in workers with arthritis.

Work participation and health status in early osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee: A comparison between the cohort hip and cohort knee and the osteoarthritis initiative

Bieleman

Oosterveld

Oostveen

et al. 2010

Objective To examine the work participation of Dutch people with early osteoarthritis (OA) in hips or knees and compare this with data from the American Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) cohort. The influence of health status and personal factors on work participation was analyzed. Methods In the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study, 1,002 subjects were included. Baseline questionnaire data from 970 subjects were analyzed. Rate ratios were calculated to compare work participation with the general Dutch population, after correcting (by stratifying) for age, sex, and education. Health status was measured using the Short Form 36 health survey and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Groups were compared (CHECK versus OAI, workers versus nonworkers) using t-tests. Results The mean age of the subjects was 56 years and 79% were women. Overall participation was 51%, similar to the general Dutch population and lower than in the OAI (76%). Point prevalence of sick leave because of hip/knee symptoms was 2%, and year prevalence was 12%. Of the subjects, 14% had made work adaptations. Workers reported significantly better health status (corrected for age, sex, and education) than nonworkers. Conclusion Work participation of Dutch people with early OA is similar to the general population and significantly lower than American subjects. Increasing age, female sex, and lower education level were related to lower participation. Societal factors appear to have had more effect on work participation than health status in this stage of OA. The better health status of workers could not be explained solely by selection bias, but may be a result of work.