SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

Objective

To examine predictors and health outcomes for individuals reporting arthritis, chronic joint symptoms (CJS), or sporadic joint symptoms (SJS) compared to those without arthritis or joint symptoms.

Methods

Data from the 2008 Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 63,134, ages ≥15 years) were used for the analyses. Respondents not reporting arthritis as a long-term chronic health condition diagnosed by a health professional were asked about joint symptoms, excluding the back and neck, over the past 12 months and whether these symptoms were present on most days in the past month (CJS) or not (SJS). Log Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) for reporting arthritis, CJS, and SJS, and for reporting health outcomes (physical activity, pain that limits activity, activity limitation, poor/fair self-rated health, and poor/fair self-rated mental health) and health service use (visits to primary care physicians, specialists, physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and overnight hospital stays).

Results

Arthritis was reported by 16.0% of the population, CJS by 10.1%, and SJS by 11.6%. Individuals with arthritis were older than those with CJS or SJS. Women reported arthritis and CJS more often. After adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic status, lifestyle factors, and comorbidities, PRs of all outcomes were higher for the arthritis and CJS groups than the SJS group, with no significant differences in PRs for the arthritis and CJS groups, except for pain that limits activity.

Conclusion

CJS were reported by 10% of the adult population. Similarities in outcomes to arthritis suggest that CJS have a substantial impact in the population, and that arthritis management advice is likely needed for this group.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

Arthritis is one of the most prevalent chronic health conditions in the population. Knowing the prevalence of arthritis is important for public health surveillance and the planning and prioritization of population-based initiatives for the control of arthritis, especially the promotion of exercise and physical activity and arthritis self-management (1–3). Population estimates of the prevalence of chronic conditions are usually obtained through self-reported data in population health surveys where respondents are asked whether they have been told by a health care professional if they have a specific condition; arthritis is no exception. However, as pointed out by others (4, 5), this definition may exclude respondents who did not consult a health care professional for their symptoms, who misunderstood or forgot the diagnosis, or who did not realize that their symptoms relate to arthritis.

Individuals with joint symptoms represent a substantial and relatively unstudied subgroup of the population. From 1997–2007, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey in the US incorporated questions to identify people who have joint symptoms (4, 6). While estimates for the prevalence of arthritis for the US were in the range of 18–36%, the BRFSS showed that an additional 10–21% of the population reported chronic joint symptoms (CJS) (7). Because CJS have been considered an indication of possible arthritis (4, 7), previous studies have been mainly concerned with attempting to establish whether individuals reporting these problems have arthritis or not (8–11). The uncertainty as to whether this is the case has led to a US recommendation to focus on those explicitly reporting arthritis for surveillance purposes and as a target for education and control initiatives (8). Less attention has been paid to the impact of these reported joint symptoms on health outcomes such as pain and quality of life, and on health service use.

Using data from a recent Canadian population health survey, which included questions about joint symptoms posed to individuals not reporting arthritis, the objectives of this study were to examine whether the predictors of reporting arthritis are similar to those of reporting joint symptoms, and to identify the risks of reporting health outcomes and health service use by comparing individuals with arthritis, CJS, and sporadic joint symptoms (SJS) with those with no arthritis or joint symptoms (NJS).

Significance & Innovations

  • In addition to people who report arthritis, a substantial proportion of the population also reports joint symptoms, a large proportion of whom has chronic joint symptoms.

  • Chronic joint symptoms have a large impact on pain, which is only slightly less than that of arthritis. In addition, when compared to those reporting arthritis, people with these symptoms reported similar health outcomes (physical activity, activity limitations, poor/fair self-rated health, and poor/fair self-rated mental health) and health care use (visits to primary care physicians, specialists, physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and inpatient stays).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

Data source.

Data for this study are from the 2008 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) conducted by Statistics Canada (12). The CCHS was a cross-sectional survey that relied on a large sample to provide estimates of health status, health service use, and determinants of health for the Canadian population. The target population included individuals ages ≥12 years living in private dwellings in each of the provinces and territories. Individuals living on Indian reserves, institutional residents, members of the Canadian Forces, and residents of certain remote regions were excluded. The survey employed a stratified 2-stage cluster design. In the first stage, separate strata were formed based on economic characteristics of the provinces, and then independent clusters were drawn from each stratum. In the second stage, dwelling lists were prepared for each cluster, and dwellings were selected from those lists. Generally, 1 person was randomly selected per household. Approximately 98% of the targeted population was covered. The overall response rate was 89.1% (n = 66,013). Further details are documented elsewhere (12). Data for the population age ≥15 years were used for the analyses (n = 63,134).

Variable definitions.

Arthritis and joint symptoms.

Self-reported arthritis was assessed with the question, “We are interested in long-term conditions which are expected to last or have already lasted 6 months or more and that have been diagnosed by a health professional. Do you have arthritis, excluding fibromyalgia?” Participants with a negative answer to this question were asked, “During the past 12 months, have you had pain or stiffness in your joints, not including your back and neck?” Those answering yes were asked, “Would you say you had this pain or stiffness on most days for at least one month?” Participants were classified into 4 mutually exclusive groups: those answering yes to the self-reported arthritis question were classified as having arthritis, those who answered yes to the presence of joint symptoms on most days for at least 1 month were classified as having CJS (this group likely represented individuals with long-lasting or persistent symptoms; we chose the label CJS since this is consistent with the terminology most used in studies reporting findings from population surveys where individuals were asked questions about joint symptoms during an extended period of time [6, 8, 13]), those who answered yes to the presence of joint symptoms but answering no to having them on most days were classified as having SJS, and those who answered no to the arthritis question and to the presence of joint symptoms were classified into the NJS group.

Demographic characteristics.

Age was categorized as 15–34 years, 35–44 years, 45–54 years, 55–64 years, 65–74 years, and ≥75 years. Ethnicity was determined by the responses to the leading statement “People in Canada come from different cultural and racial backgrounds… .” A list of 12 ethnicity groups was presented, and respondents were asked to indicate all that applied. Four mutually exclusive groups were created: only white, only Asian (includes Chinese, South Asian, West Asian, and East Asian), only Aboriginal, and other (includes all other ethnicities and multicultural origins). Studies in the literature have shown that Aboriginals report arthritis more often than non-Aboriginals, while Asians have lower rates of arthritis (14–16), and the Asian population is the largest nonwhite group in Canada. We could not examine African Americans as a separate group since <2% of the population identified themselves as African American in Canadian population surveys.

Socioeconomic status.

Individuals were asked to give an estimate of their total household income from all sources in the past 12 months (figures in Canadian dollars). A 4-category variable was created: low (<$20,000), middle-low ($20,000–$39,999), middle-high ($40,000–$59,999), and high income (≥$60,000). The highest level of education was grouped as less than secondary school, secondary school, and postsecondary school or higher.

Lifestyle factors.

Smoking status was categorized as current smoker (daily/occasional), former smoker (former daily/former occasional), and never smoked. Body mass index (BMI) (weight [kg]/height [m2]) was calculated from self-reported weight and height, except for pregnant women and individuals <0.914 meters or >2.108 meters in height (4.1% of the sample). BMI was collapsed into 4 categories: underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25–29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥30 kg/m2) (17).

Comorbidities.

The participants were asked, “We are interested in long-term conditions which are expected to last or have already lasted 6 months or more and that have been diagnosed by a health professional. Do you have …” and a list of 16 conditions was presented. A count variable was created to indicate the number of conditions reported. For descriptive purposes, the variable was further categorized as none, 1–2, and ≥3 conditions.

Outcomes.

Two sets of outcomes were considered: health outcomes (physical activity, pain that limits activity, activity limitations, poor/fair self-rated overall health, and poor/fair self-rated mental health) and health service use (consultations with primary care physicians, specialists, physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hospital inpatient overnight stays). Physical activity was based on the Statistics Canada index of leisure time and transportation physical activity (18). This index is based on the total daily energy expenditure values (kcal/kg/day) for leisure time and transportation activities, and takes into account the duration and frequency of the activity. A dichotomous variable was created whereby inactive participants were compared with active or moderately active participants.

A question was asked about the experience of pain and discomfort and, if present, whether this limits activities. Responses were dichotomized as no pain or discomfort or pain and discomfort that do not limit activity versus pain and discomfort that limit at least a few activities. Additional questions asked about the experience of difficulties with activities as a result of chronic condition(s). Two categories were created: often or sometimes and never. Respondents were asked to rate their overall health, with results dichotomized as poor/fair versus good, very good, or excellent. Self-rated mental health was categorized in the same way.

Health service use.

Participants were asked about the number of consultations with a family doctor or general practitioner in the previous 12 months. Responses were dichotomized into <4 or ≥4 consultations. Questions were also asked about consultations with specialists, physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and about hospital overnight stays. Variables created for each of these were categorized into at least 1 or none.

Statistical analyses.

The percent distribution and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of sociodemographic characteristics and health and health service use outcomes were examined for persons reporting having arthritis, CJS, SJS, and NJS. Prevalence ratio (PR) was the measure of association used in this study. Log Poisson regression was used to calculate the adjusted PRs for those reporting arthritis, CJS, and SJS compared to those in the NJS group. Similar regressions were carried out to compare the risks of reporting health and health service use outcomes comparing the arthritis, CJS, and SJS groups to the NJS group. Estimates were adjusted for sociodemographics, lifestyle characteristics, and comorbidities. All analyses were performed using data weights provided by Statistics Canada, which accounted for sample design and included adjustments for nonresponse and poststratification. To account for the clustering in the sample, bootstrap techniques were used to estimate the variance when calculating 95% CIs.

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

Arthritis and joint symptoms in the past year were reported by 16.0% and 21.7% of the Canadian population age ≥15 years, respectively. The group reporting joint symptoms was comprised of an estimated 10.1% of the population who reported CJS (that is, pain that persisted most days for at least 1 month in the past 12 months) and 11.6% of the population who reported SJS. Overall, 26.1% reported either arthritis or CJS.

The sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics of the respondents in the 4 groups examined are shown in Table 1. The most notable difference between the arthritis and CJS groups was the age distribution; a large proportion of individuals with arthritis were ages ≥65 years (42.4%), while the majority of those of those with CJS and SJS were younger than 65 years (87.0% and 86.2%, respectively). Arthritis and CJS were more common among women (61.3% and 51.7%, respectively). Individuals with arthritis reported lower socioeconomic status (low education or lower household income) more frequently than those in the other groups. A substantial proportion of individuals with arthritis (58.1%) or joint symptoms (52.4% of those with CJS and 50.6% of those with SJS) were overweight or obese; the proportion was much lower for the NJS group (41.1%). There appeared to be a gradient in the proportion of individuals reporting comorbidities from highest to lowest for those with arthritis (78.2%), CJS (66.9%), SJS (56.6%), and NJS (39.5%).

Table 1. Sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics of Canadian people in 2008*
 ArthritisCJSSJS§NJS
  • *

    Values are the percent distribution (95% confidence interval). CJS = chronic joint symptoms; SJS = sporadic joint symptoms; NJS = no arthritis and joint symptoms; SES = socioeconomic status.

  • Population estimate: 4,304,800.

  • Population estimate: 2,720,000.

  • §

    Population estimate: 3,131,400.

  • Population estimate: 16,751,100.

  • #

    P < 0.001 comparing CJS, SJS, and NJS with arthritis.

  • **

    P < 0.05 comparing CJS, SJS, and NJS with arthritis.

Age and sex   
 15–44 years13.5 (3.1–23.9)41.2 (39.2–43.2)#49.2 (47.4–51.0)#61.8 (61.2–62.4)#
 45–64 years44.1 (31.2–57.0)45.8 (43.8–47.8)37.0 (35.2–38.8)28.4 (27.8–29.0)**
 ≥65 years42.4 (31.0–53.8)13.0 (12.0–14.0)#13.8 (12.8–14.8)#9.8 (9.4–10.2)#
 Women61.3 (60.1–62.5)51.7 (49.7–53.7)#48.2 (46.6–49.8)#48.4 (48.0–48.8)#
SES    
 Education (secondary or less)42.3 (40.1–44.5)33.0 (27.8–38.2)**30.8 (27.0–34.6)#32.5 (30.3–34.7)#
 Household income (<$39,999)35.3 (33.0–37.6)24.0 (21.8–26.2)#20.2 (17.8–22.6)#19.8 (17.6–22.0)#
Ethnicity    
 Asian6.3 (5.1–7.5)6.3 (5.1–7.5)8.0 (6.6–9.4)13.3 (12.5–14.1)#
 Aboriginal3.7 (3.1–4.3)3.7 (2.9–4.5)3.0 (2.4–3.6)3.1 (2.9–3.3)
Lifestyle    
 Overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2)34.2 (32.8–35.6)33.4 (31.4–35.4)32.6 (30.8–34.4)28.7 (27.9–29.5)#
 Obese (≥30.0 kg/m2)23.9 (22.5–25.3)19.0 (17.4–20.6)**18.0 (16.6–19.4)**12.4 (11.8–13.0)#
 Current smokers21.1 (19.9–22.3)27.4 (25.5–29.3)#22.0 (19.9–24.1)20.4 (19.8–21.0)
Number of other chronic conditions    
 None18.8 (17.5–20.2)33.1 (31.0–35.1)#43.4 (41.5–45.2)#60.5 (59.6–61.3)#
 1–253.8 (52.3–55.3)53.1 (51.0–55.2)49.6 (47.7–51.4)**35.7 (34.9–36.6)#
 ≥327.4 (26.1–28.7)13.8 (12.5–15.1)#7.1 (6.3–7.9)#3.8 (3.5–4.1)#

The results of the log Poisson regression models examining predictors of reporting arthritis, CJS, and SJS compared to the NJS group confirmed increasing risks with older age for arthritis, and showed that arthritis and CJS were more likely to be reported by women (Table 2). However, the contribution of ethnicity (Aboriginal), overweight/obesity, and smoking status was similar for those with arthritis and CJS and higher than that for SJS. For example, individuals with arthritis and CJS were more likely to also report being obese than those with SJS or NJS. Low socioeconomic status was associated with an increased likelihood of reporting arthritis but not joint symptoms. Having ≥1 comorbidities was also associated with reporting of all 3 arthritis or joint symptom groups.

Table 2. Results from separate log Poisson regression models for the predictors of arthritis, CJS, and SJS compared to those with NJS for Canadian people in 2008*
 ArthritisCJSSJS
  • *

    Values are the prevalence ratio (95% confidence interval). CJS = chronic joint symptoms; SJS = sporadic joint symptoms; NJS = no arthritis and joint symptoms; BMI = body mass index.

  • P < 0.05 comparing CJS and SJS with the arthritis group.

Age groups, years (ref.15–24)   
 25–342.29 (1.66–2.92)1.21 (1.02–1.40)0.93 (0.8–1.06)
 35–445.01 (3.76–6.26)1.67 (1.41–1.93)1.22 (1.07–1.37)
 45–549.97 (7.56–12.38)2.31 (1.96–2.66)1.32 (1.15–1.49)
 55–6414.63 (11.1–18.16)2.20 (1.87–2.53)1.52 (1.33–1.71)
 65–7417.22 (13.11–21.33)1.60 (1.35–1.85)1.44 (1.23–1.65)
 ≥7519.83 (15.04–24.62)1.50 (1.23–1.77)1.34 (1.13–1.55)
Women (ref. men)1.39 (1.31–1.47)1.15 (1.06–1.24)1.04 (0.97–1.11)
Education (ref. greater than secondary)   
 Less than secondary1.00 (0.95–1.05)1.00 (0.90–1.10)0.95 (0.86–1.04)
 Secondary0.99 (0.91–1.07)0.99 (0.88–1.10)0.88 (0.80–0.96)
Household income (ref. ≥$60,000)   
 <$20,0001.08 (1.00–1.16)0.97 (0.84–1.10)0.89 (0.77–1.01)
 $20,000–$39,9991.12 (1.04–1.2)1.08 (0.96–1.20)0.94 (0.86–1.02)
 $40,000–$59,9991.05 (0.98–1.12)1.02 (0.92–1.12)1.03 (0.94–1.12)
 Not stated0.96 (0.87–1.05)0.89 (0.77–1.01)0.89 (0.89–0.89)
Ethnicity (ref. white)   
 Asian0.77 (0.64–0.90)0.63 (0.51–0.75)0.72 (0.61–0.83)
 Aboriginal1.27 (1.12–1.42)1.10 (0.92–1.28)0.97 (0.83–1.11)
 Other0.77 (0.59–1.02)0.92 (0.72–1.12)0.85 (0.70–1.00)
BMI (ref. <25.0 kg/m2)   
 Overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2)1.16 (1.09–1.23)1.16 (1.06–1.26)1.16 (1.07–1.25)
 Obese (≥30.0 kg/m2)1.36 (1.27–1.45)1.20 (1.09–1.31)1.27 (1.15–1.39)
Smoking (ref. never smoked)   
 Current smoker1.30 (1.21–1.39)1.43 (1.28–1.58)1.18 (1.07–1.29)
 Former smoker1.14 (1.07–1.21)1.26 (1.15–1.37)1.17 (1.08–1.26)
Number of other chronic conditions (ref. none)   
 1–22.17 (2.00–2.37)2.01 (1.84–2.21)1.53 (1.41–1.65)
 ≥33.15 (2.89–3.42)3.15 (2.80–3.55)1.66 (1.45–1.90)

The percent distributions of the health and health service use outcomes examined are shown in Table 3 for each of the groups of interest. Similar proportions of individuals reporting being physically inactive were found for the arthritis and CJS groups. A markedly greater proportion of individuals with arthritis and CJS reported pain that limits at least a few activities, sometimes or often having activity limitations, or poor/fair general health than those with SJS or NJS. The proportions with these outcomes were somewhat higher for the arthritis than the CJS group. Generally, there was a gradient in the proportion reporting poor health outcomes (being physically inactive, poor/fair self-rated health, poor/fair self-rated mental health, pain that limits activities, and activity limitations) or increased use of health services (visits to family doctors, visits to specialists, inpatient stays, visits to physiotherapists, and visits to chiropractors) from highest to lowest for those with arthritis, CJS, SJS, and NJS.

Table 3. Health outcomes and health service use among Canadian individuals ages ≥15 years in 2008*
 ArthritisCJSSJS§NJS
  • *

    Values are the percent distribution (95% confidence interval). CJS = chronic joint symptoms; SJS = sporadic joint symptoms; NJS = no arthritis and joint symptoms.

  • Population estimate: 4,304,800.

  • Population estimate: 2,720,000.

  • §

    Population estimate: 3,131,400.

  • Population estimate: 16,751,100.

  • #

    P < 0.05 comparing CJS, SJS, and NJS with arthritis.

  • **

    P < 0.001 comparing CJS, SJS, and NJS with arthritis.

  • ††

    At least 1 visit.

Health outcomes    
 Physical activity (inactive)56.7 (55.1–58.3)52.3 (50.3–54.3)#47.5 (45.7–49.3)**47.1 (46.3–47.9)**
 Pain limits activities39.8 (38.0–41.6)27.7 (25.9–29.5)**6.2 (5.4–7.0)**4.6 (4.2–5.0)**
 Activity limitations (sometimes or often)29.7 (28.5–30.9)18.7 (17.5–19.9)**7.1 (6.3–7.9)**4.8 (4.2–5.4)**
 Self-rated health (fair or poor)29.7 (28.3–31.1)19.6 (18.0–21.2)**9.4 (8.2–10.6)**6.5 (6.1–6.9)**
 Self-rated mental health (fair or poor)8.8 (7.8–9.8)8.7 (7.5–9.9)5.1 (4.1–6.1)**3.5 (3.1–3.9)**
Health service use    
 Visits to primary care physicians (≥4 visits)45.4 (43.8–47.0)33.9 (32.1–35.7)**23.8 (22.4–25.2)**19.2 (18.6–19.8)**
 Visits to specialists††43.6 (42.2–45.0)39.4 (37.4–41.4)**31.4 (29.8–33.0)**24.1 (23.3–24.9)**
 Inpatient overnight††12.8 (12.0–13.6)11.2 (10.0–12.4)**6.4 (5.6–7.2)**6.6 (6.2–7.0)**
 Visits to physiotherapists††14.4 (13.4–15.4)17.9 (16.5–19.3)**9.1 (7.9–10.3)**6.3 (5.9–6.7)**
 Visits to chiropractors††13.3 (12.3–14.3)16.5 (14.9–18.1)#12.3 (11.3–13.3)10.1 (9.7–10.5)**

Table 4 shows the results of the log Poisson regression models examining predictors of the health and health service use outcomes. After adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics, as well as comorbidities, there was still a gradient of poor health outcomes and increased health service utilization with the PRs from highest to lowest for those with arthritis, CJS, and SJS. There were no differences in risks, as shown by the overlapping 95% CIs for the PRs of the arthritis and CJS groups for all the outcomes studied, except for pain that limits activities. Nevertheless, for the latter, the PRs for both arthritis and CJS were substantial (5.07 [95% CI 4.48–5.73] and 4.11 [95% CI 3.65–4.43], respectively). PRs of all outcomes were significantly lower for the SJS group than the CJS group. However, for the SJS group, the PRs for most of the outcomes were significantly higher than for NJS.

Table 4. Results from separate log Poisson regression models for health and health service use outcomes among the Canadian household population age ≥15 years in 2008*
 ArthritisCJSSJS
  • *

    Values are the prevalence ratio (95% confidence interval). All models include age, sex, income, education, ethnicity, body mass index, smoking, and number of chronic conditions. CJS = chronic joint symptoms; SJS = sporadic joint symptoms.

  • The no arthritis and joint symptoms group was the reference group.

  • P < 0.05 comparing CJS and SJS with the arthritis group.

Health outcomes   
 Physical activity (ref. active/moderately active)1.06 (1.02–1.11)1.05 (1.01–1.11)0.99 (0.95–1.03)
 Pain prevents activities (ref. no pain/pain prevents no activities)5.07 (4.48–5.73)4.11 (3.65–4.43)1.14 (0.97–1.34)
 Activity limitations (ref. never)2.64 (2.47–2.82)2.50 (2.33–2.69)1.60 (1.47–1.74)
 Self-rated health (ref. excellent/very good/good)1.95 (1.74–2.19)2.03 (1.80–2.29)1.19 (1.03–1.38)
 Self-rated mental health (ref. excellent/very good/good)1.61 (1.35–1.91)1.76 (1.49–2.07)1.23 (1.00–1.51)
Health service use outcomes   
 Visits to primary care physicians (ref. <4)1.51 (1.42–1.62)1.45 (1.35–1.56)1.14 (1.06–1.22)
 Visits to specialists (ref. none)1.36 (1.28–1.44)1.43 (1.34–1.52)1.20 (1.13–1.28)
 Inpatient stays (ref. none)1.15 (1.04–1.28)1.34 (1.18–1.53)0.86 (0.75–1.00)
 Visits to physiotherapists (ref. none)2.20 (1.97–2.47)2.55 (2.28–2.85)1.36 (1.17–1.58)
 Visits to chiropractors (ref. none)1.21 (1.09–1.33)1.33 (1.19–1.49)1.06 (0.96–1.17)

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

Almost two-fifths of the respondents (37.7%, >10 million people) reported either arthritis or joint symptoms in a nationally representative health survey of the Canadian population, with 26.1% of the population (7 million people) reporting arthritis or CJS (symptoms on most days in the previous month). Although people with CJS tended to be much younger, a major finding from this study is the similarity of the impact of arthritis and CJS on a range of health-related outcomes, including the use of the health care system, after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle characteristics.

Previous studies have established the impact of arthritis on activity limitations, reporting fair or poor self-rated overall and mental health and increased health service use (19–21), but studies comparing outcomes associated with arthritis and with CJS have been limited in scope. All studies have found an increased risk of activity limitation in those with joint symptoms compared to those without joint symptoms (6, 8, 9, 13, 20). There is less agreement when the risks for activity limitation are compared for individuals with joint symptoms and with arthritis. Studies from the US generally show a lower risk for those with joint symptoms (8, 9), whereas our study as well as the study by Busija et al show that those with CJS were at a similar risk of activity limitation to the arthritis group (13). A study of the BRFSS population showed increased risks of CJS for reporting only fair or poor health or physical inactivity (10). The new findings from our study are the similarities in outcome for a range of indicators of health service use for arthritis and CJS, and that the impact of CJS on pain that prevents activities is only slightly less than that of arthritis.

It is unclear what the CJS group represents. This group may represent people in the early stages of arthritis who have not yet been diagnosed, particularly since they were more likely to be of a younger age. Findings from a supplement to the 2008 CCHS, the arthritis module of the Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada (SLCDC), showed a difference of 3 years between the reported onset of joint symptoms and the subsequent diagnosis of arthritis (Tosevsky, et al: unpublished observations). The CJS group may also represent individuals with conditions affecting the joint structures that would fit within the general category of soft tissue disorders. The definition of CJS also varies in the literature based on the duration of the symptoms. As in our study, most studies from population surveys asked questions about symptoms in a 12-month period (6, 8, 13); however, a recent study using data from the 2002 BRFSS defined CJS based on a modified question about symptoms that began >3 months ago (8). We decided to keep the terminology consistent with the majority of the literature. Given the high impact on both the individual and health care system, further research is needed to understand the characteristics of CJS. Some indication of the extent and sites of joint involvement in those reporting joint symptoms would be useful to help understand the nature of these symptoms and to plan appropriate interventions.

The overall proportion of people with arthritis or joint symptoms in this study is lower than the estimate of ∼50% for the Australian population ages ≥18 years (13) and 41% for the US population ages ≥18 years (8). The proportion with arthritis or CJS (26.1%) is also slightly lower than the estimate for the US for a similar combination (8). However, the prevalence estimates for CJS and SJS found here are similar to the estimates by Busija et al for CJS alone and SJS alone (13). It should be noted that the format and order of the questions differed somewhat between the surveys, which may have affected prevalence estimates as well as the proportion with the different outcomes studied.

Our findings that arthritis was more prevalent among women, those of older age, and those with low socioeconomic status, high BMI, and current and former smoking status are consistent with the findings from previous studies (14, 16, 22–24), and the lower prevalence in Asians and higher prevalence in Aboriginals are compatible with earlier findings from the Canadian population (23). Notably, the predictors for CJS in this population other than age were similar to those for arthritis. Our finding that those with joint symptoms were younger is similar to findings from previous studies (8, 9, 13). In contrast to the study by Busija et al (13), we found women were more likely to report CJS, whereas in US studies, which did not differentiate CJS and SJS, men were slightly more likely to report joint symptoms (8, 9, 13).

A substantial proportion of the population also reported SJS. While the impact in this group was less overall than for CJS, the risks of the adverse outcomes studied here were significantly higher than for the population with NJS. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether those with SJS go on to develop CJS, and whether those with CJS are at higher risk for later arthritis.

The validity of the question on joint symptoms as an indicator of possible arthritis in US studies has been examined, with conflicting results (8–10, 25). Using data from Chicago residents ages ≥45 years, Feinglass et al (9) suggested that given the similarities between those with joint symptoms and arthritis, joint symptoms should be used to identify individuals with arthritis in population surveys. However, a more recent US study using data from 4 states found that only a very small proportion of those with joint symptoms who had seen a doctor had received a diagnosis compatible with arthritis (8). In this study, joint symptoms were defined as symptoms of any pain, aching, or stiffness in or around a joint experienced in the past 30 days that had begun more than 3 months ago. The questions did not ask whether the symptoms were experienced on most days, as was the case for the CJS group in our study. In view of the younger age and lesser activity limitations in those with CJS compared to those reporting arthritis, the US study concluded that those with CJS “would be unlikely amenable to medical and public health interventions.” Nonetheless, given the similarity in risks for health outcomes and health service use for the arthritis and CJS groups in our study, we suggest that this conclusion deserves reexamination.

Our study has some strengths and limitations. The questions pertaining to joint symptoms were asked only to participants without arthritis, which did not allow us to estimate the occurrence of both joint symptoms and arthritis. However, the analysis of the arthritis module of the SLCDC suggested that over 95% of individuals with arthritis reported joint symptoms (unpublished observations). Also, it is not clear whether the order in which the questions were asked could have affected the reporting of arthritis or joint symptoms. The strengths of this study include that the data came from a nationally representative population health survey with a large sample size and a range of variables, which means we could examine several health outcomes.

This study found that in addition to people who report arthritis, a substantial proportion of the population also reports joint symptoms, a large proportion of whom has CJS. Attention needs to be paid to the nature of these joint symptoms to determine the extent to which they may be an indication of early arthritis or other arthritis-related conditions. A major finding of this study is the similarities in impact on health and health service use between individuals reporting arthritis with those reporting CJS. Whether or not people reporting CJS have arthritis, at the very least, the findings in our study suggest a need for interventions and advice to manage these symptoms to control pain and activity limitation in order to improve health and quality of life and to reduce the impact on the health care system.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES

All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the final version to be published. Ms Canizares had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study conception and design. Canizares, Badley.

Acquisition of data. Canizares, Badley.

Analysis and interpretation of data. Canizares, Badley.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
  8. REFERENCES
  • 1
    American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Clinical Guidelines. Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1996; 39: 71322.
  • 2
    American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Osteoarthritis Guidelines. Recommendations for the medical management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: 2000 update. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43: 190515.
  • 3
    Shih M, Hootman JM, Kruger J, Helmick CG. Physical activity in men and women with arthritis: National Health Interview Survey, 2002. Am J Prev Med 2006; 30: 38593.
  • 4
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of self-reported arthritis or chronic joint symptoms among adults: United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002; 51: 94850.
  • 5
    Picavet HS, Hazes JM. Prevalence of self reported musculoskeletal diseases is high. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 64450.
  • 6
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence and impact of chronic joint symptoms: seven states, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1998; 47: 34551.
  • 7
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of doctor-diagnosed arthritis and possible arthritis: 30 states, 2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004; 53: 3836.
  • 8
    Bolen J, Helmick CG, Sacks JJ, Gizlice Z, Potter C. Should people who have joint symptoms, but no diagnosis of arthritis from a doctor, be included in surveillance efforts? Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63: 1504.
  • 9
    Feinglass J, Nelson C, Lawther T, Chang RW. Chronic joint symptoms and prior arthritis diagnosis in community surveys: implications for arthritis prevalence estimates. Public Health Rep 2003; 118: 2309.
  • 10
    Feinglass J, Lee C, Durazo-Arvizu R, Chang R. Health status, arthritis risk factors, and medical care use among respondents with joint symptoms or physician diagnosed arthritis: findings from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. J Rheumatol 2005; 32: 1306.
  • 11
    Sacks JJ, Harrold LR, Helmick CG, Gurwitz JH, Emani S, Yood RA. Validation of a surveillance case definition for arthritis. J Rheumatol 2005; 32: 3407.
  • 12
    Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). 2008 annual component: user guide. 2009. URL: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/document/3226_D7_T9_V5-eng.pdf.
  • 13
    Busija L, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH. Quantifying the impact of transient joint symptoms, chronic joint symptoms, and arthritis: a population-based approach. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61: 131221.
  • 14
    Lawrence RC, Helmick CG, Arnett FC, Deyo RA, Felson DT, Giannini EH, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41: 77899.
  • 15
    Mili F, Helmick CG, Zack MM. Prevalence of arthritis: analysis of data from the US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1996-99. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 19818.
  • 16
    Seavey WG, Kurata JH, Cohen RD. Risk factors for incident self-reported arthritis in a 20 year followup of the Alameda County Study Cohort. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 210311.
  • 17
    Douketis JD, Paradis G, Keller H, Martineau C. Canadian guidelines for body weight classification in adults: application in clinical practice to screen for overweight and obesity and to assess disease risk. CMAJ 2005; 172: 9958.
  • 18
    Statistics Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). 2008 annual component: derived variable (DV) specifications. 2009. URL: www.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/document/3226_D2_T9_V6-eng.pdf.
  • 19
    Badley EM, Ansari H. Arthritis and arthritis-attributable activity limitations in the United States and Canada: a cross-border comparison. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010:62: 30815.
  • 20
    Mili F, Helmick CG, Moriarty DG. Health related quality of life among adults reporting arthritis: analysis of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, US, 1996-99. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1606.
  • 21
    Perruccio AV, Power JD, Badley EM. The relative impact of 13 chronic conditions across three different outcomes. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61: 105661.
  • 22
    Busija L, Hollingsworth B, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH. Role of age, sex, and obesity in the higher prevalence of arthritis among lower socioeconomic groups: a population-based survey. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 55361.
  • 23
    Canizares M, Power JD, Perruccio AV, Badley EM. Association of regional racial/cultural context and socioeconomic status with arthritis in the population: a multilevel analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59: 399407.
  • 24
    Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58: 2635.
  • 25
    Bombard JM, Powell KE, Martin LM, Helmick CG, Wilson WH. Validity and reliability of self-reported arthritis: Georgia senior centers, 2000-2001. Am J Prev Med 2005; 28: 2518.