Profile of arthritis disability: II

Abstract

Objective. Arthritis is the most common chronic condition and the most common cause of disability among older US adults. We studied social participation, disabilities in many life domains, accommodations used (buffers), and accommodations needed (barriers) for US adults with arthritis disability compared with adults with disability from other conditions. Methods. The data source is the National Health Interview Survey Disability Supplement Phase Two. Arthritis-disabled individuals named arthritis as the main cause of >1 disabilities. Other-disabled individuals named only other conditions as causes of their disabilities. We compared outcomes for the groups, taking sample weights and complex variances into account. Results. Arthritis-disabled individuals get out and about less often than other-disabled individuals, but they manage to maintain active social ties. They have more disabilities of all types (personal care, household management, physical tasks, transportation, home, work), and the disabilities often cause fatigue, long task time, and pain. Despite this, arthritis-disabled individuals use less personal assistance than other-disabled individuals; they do use more equipment assistance. Arthritis-disabled individuals report more barriers in getting around outside their home and at their workplace. Conclusion. The distinctive profile of arthritis disability includes extensive and uncomfortable disabilities, yet there are active management strategies to handle these disabilities. Problems away from home and at work should inspire engineers and planners to improve public access and equipment for persons with this high-prevalence disability.

Randomized prospective study of a work place ergonomic intervention for individuals with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis

“…Numerous studies (16 -20) indicated pain and severity of functional disability as limiting duration and type of employment, although other studies indi-cated specific symptoms such as pain, joint function, and laboratory findings as nonpredictors of work limitations and cessation (5). Other factors associated with vocational success for persons with arthritis include support of coworkers, supervisors, and family members; perceived high job status; positive attitudes toward the job; workstation modifications; satisfactory transportation; and selfemployment (13,(15)(16). More common and effective accommodations reported were the ability to alter work hours, flexible scheduling, the ability to control the pace of work tasks, participation in decision making, fewer work place limitations (e.g., sitting and standing long periods, lifting, reaching, and repetitive tasks), the ability to modify tasks and workstations, assistance from others, medications, and changing jobs (21,22).…”

“…Another review of 9 studies of job retention for persons with chronic diseases also reported limited effectiveness of programs focused on work accommodations and self-efficacy (25). Regardless of the benefit of specific VR programs for persons with arthritis, persons with arthritis infrequently use VR services (16,26,27).…”

Arthritis restricts volunteer participation: Prevalence and correlates of volunteer status among adults with arthritis

“…Previous studies have shown that people with arthritis frequently report arthritis-attributable activity limitations (13,14) and participation restriction in important domains, e.g., socializing (15), accessing transportation (16), social and leisure activities (17,18), and getting around the community (16,19). Associations between limitations, pain, joints affected, and other symptoms have been inconsistent in these studies; however, negative psychological impacts are regularly associated with arthritis (20,21).…”

Arthritis disability and heart disease disability

“…Despite the highest social participation, they reported the most service barriers, especially work-related barriers. Our prior analyses comparing people with arthritis disability with people with disability from other conditions had compatible results (50,51). The OthDisab group here was smaller (94%) because persons with heart disease disability were taken into analysis groups.…”

“…The big difference between Phase One and Phase Two questionnaires can also confuse readers. Overall, the questionnaire structure requires painstaking description in analyses (50,51).…”