PubMed · 13664227
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
DOS REIS JAV. 1959. [Common cold & absenteeism].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13664227/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome is a common chronic functional gastrointestinal disorder characterized by recurrent abdominal pain and discomfort associated with alterations in bowel habit. Irritable bowel syndrome affects patients' quality of life and increases productivity loss. AIM: To assess validity and accuracy of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in irritable bowel syndrome as a tool for quantifying the effects of irritable bowel syndrome on productivity and daily activities. METHODS: Validity and accuracy were evaluated in 135 irritable bowel syndrome patients relative to three measures of irritable bowel syndrome disease severity; a debriefing questionnaire; retrospective diary; Work Limitations Questionnaire, and an activity impairment measure (Dimensions of Daily Activities). RESULTS: Symptom severity scores, diary scores, Work Limitations Questionnaire and Dimensions of Daily Activities were significant predictors of work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire in irritable bowel syndrome measures of work time missed, and work and activity productivity loss (P = 0.04 to < 0.0001). Impairment due to irritable bowel syndrome was estimated to be 2.9-4.3% for work time missed and 22-32% for impairment at work, the equivalent of 9.7 -14 h lost productivity per week. Activity impairment was 24-41%. CONCLUSIONS: Discriminative validity of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in irritable bowel syndrome was established, making it the only validated tool for measuring the relative differences between disease severity groups and quantifying work productivity loss and activity impairment in irritable bowel syndrome patients.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of standard care, early intervention treatment, and occupational management in the management of Workers' Compensation injury claims. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The current management of occupational back pain and work-related upper extremity disorders with either standard care or early intervention treatment appears to be ineffective. METHODS: A prospective cohort looked at the effect of one company with access to standard care (primary care) changing to occupational management (worksite encouragement to resume activity and work as soon as safely possible) and then to early intervention treatment (offsite work hardening). This information was then compared with the control company with access to early intervention treatment, which later changed to a combined occupational management/early intervention treatment approach. Survival analysis was used to attempt to explain differences in time to injury claim closure. RESULTS: Occupational management resulted in lower injury claim incidence, duration, and costs than early intervention treatment. Only the covariate of enhanced physical therapist (work hardening) involvement (2001 hazard rate ratio 17.41, 95% confidence interval 3.72-41.51 and 2002 hazard rate ratio 6.22, 95% confidence interval 2.51-15.40) was associated with delayed time to injury claim closure when the company had access to early intervention treatment. Only the covariate of serious injury was associated with delayed time to injury claim closure in the company when it had access to occupational management (hazard rate ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.05-27.20). CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that an occupational management approach, in comparison to early intervention treatment and standard care, be considered for management of occupational injuries.
BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis can be used to pool rate measures across studies, but challenges arise when follow-up duration varies. Our objective was to compare different statistical approaches for pooling count data of varying follow-up times in terms of estimates of effect, precision, and clinical interpretability. METHODS: We examined data from a published Cochrane Review of asthma self-management education in children. We selected two rate measures with the largest number of contributing studies: school absences and emergency room (ER) visits. We estimated fixed- and random-effects standardized weighted mean differences (SMD), stratified incidence rate differences (IRD), and stratified incidence rate ratios (IRR). We also fit Poisson regression models, which allowed for further adjustment for clustering by study. RESULTS: For both outcomes, all methods gave qualitatively similar estimates of effect in favor of the intervention. For school absences, SMD showed modest results in favor of the intervention (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.04). IRD implied that the intervention reduced school absences by 1.8 days per year (IRD -0.15 days/child-month, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.11), while IRR suggested a 14% reduction in absences (IRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.90). For ER visits, SMD showed a modest benefit in favor of the intervention (SMD -0.27, 95% CI: -0.45 to -0.09). IRD implied that the intervention reduced ER visits by 1 visit every 2 years (IRD -0.04 visits/child-month, 95% CI: -0.05 to -0.03), while IRR suggested a 34% reduction in ER visits (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74). In Poisson models, adjustment for clustering lowered the precision of the estimates relative to stratified IRR results. For ER visits but not school absences, failure to incorporate study indicators resulted in a different estimate of effect (unadjusted IRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Choice of method among the ones presented had little effect on inference but affected the clinical interpretability of the findings. Incidence rate methods gave more clinically interpretable results than SMD. Poisson regression allowed for further adjustment for heterogeneity across studies. These data suggest that analysts who want to improve the clinical interpretability of their findings should consider incidence rate methods.