• Arthritis;
  • Employment;
  • Adaptation;
  • Psychosocial factors


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  7. Acknowledgements


To understand arthritis-related workplace changes, including occasional work loss and changes to the type and hours of work, and the factors associated with them using theories of adaptation and behavior change as a framework.


Participants were 492 employed individuals with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. They completed an interview-administered, structured questionnaire assessing demographic, workplace, and psychosocial variables, as well as such work transitions as changes to the hours, type, and nature of work. Hypotheses were examined using multiple linear regression.


Seventy percent of respondents made at least 1 work change. Younger participants and those with greater workplace activity limitations reported more changes. Work changes were associated with greater depression. A hypothesized 3-way interaction among people's perceptions of their capacity, their future job expectations, and whether they had told their employer about their arthritis was significant.


This study extends arthritis employment research by examining a range of work changes. It highlights the dynamic interplay among arthritis, workplace, and psychosocial variables to understand adaptation to arthritis disability.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  7. Acknowledgements

The psychological and health benefits of employment have long been recognized in addition to its economic benefit. Work is an important source of identity, self esteem, and competence (1–6). Loss of employment has been associated with increased depression and anxiety, reduced physical functioning, and mortality (7–13). Among individuals with arthritis, there is ample evidence linking the pain and disability of the disease to giving up employment (14–24). The ramifications of this are considerable given that arthritis is the leading cause of long-term physical disability in adults, that the number of people with arthritis disability is expected to nearly double by 2020, and that half of this increase is expected to occur among individuals who are in their highest earning years (ages 45–65 years) (25–28).

A focus on job loss has meant that relatively little is known about the number and range of work transitions that people with arthritis use to remain employed and the perceptions, expectations, and work factors associated with these job changes. Specifically, few studies have examined occasional lost work hours (such as using sick days or vacation time) to manage arthritis, changes to the type and nature of work (such as changing one's job or forgoing a promotion), and permanent changes to work hours (such as going from full-time to part-time work). What research exists finds that people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) often report comparable indirect costs of illness (29), that there is large variability in the number of sick days reported (30), that employers rarely initiate workplace accommodations (24, 31), and that the factors important to remaining at work may relate less to disease and more to age and work characteristics (32).

This article examines work changes that people attribute to their arthritis. Of interest is the nature and number of work transitions people report and how they relate to people's arthritis workplace activity limitations, their perceived capacity, future employment expectations, and their decision whether or not to disclose their arthritis to their employer. Previous studies, drawing on theories of behavior change and adaptation, have found that people's perceptions of their current capacity and their expectations for the future are important in understanding decisions and behavior changes (33–42). People assess potential outcomes associated with their decisions and attempt to maximize their gains and minimize their losses (33, 34). Moreover, variables associated with behavior change, particularly those assessing people's perceptions, may interact with one another to jointly predict change.

For example, work changes may require an employer's endorsement before they can be implemented. As a result, employer knowledge of a person's arthritis is expected to be associated with more work transitions. The potential gain is that, by disclosing to their employer, people may be able to make work changes that would enable them to remain working. The potential risks are that an employer will not make job accommodations, that perceptions of the person as a “good” employee will change, or that disclosing one's condition will contribute to having to ultimately forgo employment. For this reason, individuals may decide to disclose their arthritis only when they perceive it is necessary. This includes when they believe arthritis has significantly changed their capacity to perform activities and meet goals and when they have concerns that they may not be able to remain employed in the future unless changes are implemented (43, 44). From a methodologic point of view, it suggests that disclosure to an employer, perceptions of current capacity, and future employment expectations will not be independently associated with work changes, but will interact with one another to predict work transitions.

As noted, research suggests that people will view employment as an important role and will make efforts to remain working. If individuals attempt to minimize work-related losses due to arthritis, a greater percentage would report occasional lost work hours to deal with arthritis (such as sick days, extended breaks at work, and vacation time) than they would permanent changes to work hours or to the type or nature of work. However, having arthritis may put limits on people's capacity to minimize their losses. Hence, arthritis-related workplace activity limitations are expected to be associated with work transitions. Finally, given the importance of the work role, depressive affect is expected to relate to work changes, with more work changes being associated with greater depression.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  7. Acknowledgements


Participants were 383 women and 109 men. All were diagnosed with arthritis, primarily OA and RA, and all were employed. Most participants resided in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited to encompass a wide range of occupations and arthritis-related limitations. Efforts were made to include people receiving a range of health care for their arthritis. As a result, the sample was a purposive one. Subjects were recruited from 5 rheumatology clinics, the Arthritis Society Ontario Division, rehabilitation clinics, recruitment posters in community hospitals, and community newspaper advertisements. Respondents were screened over the telephone to determine their eligibility for the study. Eligibility criteria included 1) reporting having been diagnosed with either OA or inflammatory arthritis; 2) having arthritis for at least 1 year; 3) paid employment; 4) no comorbid conditions causing physical disability; and 5) fluency in English. Of 703 screening questionnaires, 492 people (70.0%) were eligible and were subsequently interviewed. The remaining individuals were not employed or were retired at the time of the screening (3.6%); desired information, treatment, or compensation for participation (8.3%); had not been diagnosed with arthritis by their physician or had comorbid conditions resulting in physical disability (3.6%); were not available at call back or were not interested in participating in the study after hearing more details (e.g., time involved; 14.6%).


Participants were interviewed at home or at a location of their choice using an in-depth, structured questionnaire. This was the first phase of a 3-year longitudinal study. Participants were informed that the researchers were interested in learning about people's experiences living with arthritis and being employed. On average, interviews lasted 2 hours. The questionnaire included items and scales from previous research, items specifically developed for this study, and standardized procedures and probes. The questionnaire was pilot tested with 7 individuals. Only minor changes were made to the wording of some items to facilitate their use. Interviewers completed an in-depth, standardized training session and their data were monitored to reduce bias. Regular meetings were held with interviewers to supplement their training. Informed, written consent was obtained from all participants.



Respondents' sex, age, marital status, education, total household income, arthritis prescription medications, and health care utilization for arthritis in the previous year were collected.

Arthritis type and duration.

Participants were asked for the type(s) of arthritis with which they had been diagnosed and the time since diagnosis. For ease of analysis, arthritis type was later collapsed into 3 categories: inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis), osteoarthritis, or both.

Occupational field.

Occupation was classified using the Human Resources Development Canada National Occupational Classification Matrix 2001 (available at For the purposes of analysis, the occupations were collapsed into 4 groups: 1) business, finance, and administration; 2) health, science, art, and sport; 3) sales and service; and 4) trades, transportation, and equipment operators.

Employer knowledge of arthritis.

Respondents were asked, “Does your employer/supervisor know about your arthritis?” (1 = no; 2 = yes).

Physically active work.

Participants were asked “To what extent does your job involve physical activity, movement (e.g., bending, lifting, walking, etc.)?” Responses were on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = quite a bit, and 5 = a great deal (mean ± SD 3.29 ± 1.34, range 1–5).

Workplace activity limitations.

We created an 11-item scale to gauge physical functioning and arthritis-related activity limitations in the workplace. The questions are similar to those used in workplace limitation questionnaires published since the advent of this study (45). Participants were asked to think about carrying out each activity “without any help from another person or without the help of a special gadget or piece of equipment.” Items asked respondents how much difficulty they had getting to and from work; getting around the workplace; sitting and standing for long periods of time at work; lifting; working with your hands; crouching, bending, or kneeling; reaching; the schedule, hours, and pace of work; and meeting current job demands. Responses were on a 4-point Likert-type scale where 0 = no difficulty, 1 = some difficulty, 2 = a lot of difficulty, and 3 = not able to do. Participants indicating that an activity was not applicable to their job were given a score of 0 (no difficulty) for that activity. Reliability for the scale was 0.78 (mean ± SD 6.39 ± 4.37, range 0–20).

Future job expectations.

Respondents were asked, “Do you anticipate leaving your job within the next year as a result of your arthritis?” (1 = no; 2 = yes).

Changed capacity and goals.

Respondents' perceptions of the impact of their arthritis on their capacity and goals were assessed using the 7-item Changed Capacity and Goals scale (43, 44). Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items include “My condition keeps me from being able to do what I want to do,” “I've had to set new goals for myself because of my condition,” and “I've had to change the way I do things because of my condition.” Reliability for the scale was 0.85 (mean ± SD 25.32 ± 5.49, range 7–35).


The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) measured depressive symptomatology (46). The CES-D is a 20-item scale assessing the major components of depression identified in the literature. Respondents reported on the frequency of symptoms experienced during the past week on a scale from 0 (rarely or none of the time; less than 1 day) to 3 (most or all of the time; 5–7 days). Scores ≥16 are taken as evidence of depression. Reliability for the scale was 0.92 (mean ± SD 10.88 ± 10.06, range 0–48).

Work transitions.

Seven items falling into 3 broad classes assessed work changes related to arthritis. Items were drawn from a review of employment research (47). Respondents were asked whether in the last 6 months their arthritis had resulted in the following: 1) occasional lost work hours due to work interruptions of 20 minutes or more, taking sick or vacation days to deal with arthritis; 2) permanent changes to work hours, such as reducing the number of hours worked in a week; and 3) changes to the type or nature of their work, such as being unable to take on extra projects or responsibilities or being unable to seek or accept a promotion or job transfer. They were also asked if at any time they had changed the type of work they performed. In addition to examining each item separately, a total work transition score was calculated for each respondent, summing the total number of work transitions. Scores ranged from 0 (no work transitions) to 7 (use of at least 1 of each work transition behavior).

Data analysis.

Variable frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated. Standard multiple linear regression examined the relationship of people's total number of work transitions and the independent variables (48, 49). Categorical variables were dummy coded. Reference groups for sex, marital status, education, household income, diagnosis, occupational field, employer knowledge of employee's arthritis, and future job expectations were as follows: men; married or living as married; postgraduate education; an income of greater than $100,000 (Canadian); inflammatory arthritis; business, finance, and administration; does not know about employee's arthritis; and future expectations of not leaving one's job in the next year. Bivariate analyses of the independent variables were examined first, as were interitem correlation coefficients of the independent variables to identify potential multicollinearity. Multivariate linear regression analysis examined the relationship of people's total number of work transitions and the independent variables significant at the bivariate level of analysis (P < 0.10). Variables were entered simultaneously into the analyses. The analysis included a hypothesized 3-way interaction for employer knowledge, future job expectations, and changed capacities and goals. All lower-order interaction terms were tested in addition to the 3-way interaction. Analyses used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 11.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  7. Acknowledgements

Table 1 presents sample characteristics for the study. On average, participants were 51 years old and more than three-quarters were women. More than half the respondents were married and most were relatively well educated with annual incomes exceeding $40,000. One-third of participants reported inflammatory arthritis (n = 165). Of these, 145 (88%) had RA, the remainder having other types of inflammatory arthritis, such as psoriatic arthritis. More than half the sample had OA and 10% had both OA and RA. Nearly 30% of respondents reported not taking any prescription medication for their arthritis, with most of these individuals having OA (81.1%). On average, respondents had arthritis for 9 years and most had utilized health services for their condition in the past year. More than two-thirds of respondents worked in business, finance, health, science, art, or sports fields. The remainder worked in sales, service, trades, transportation, or equipment operating occupations. Approximately one-quarter of respondents had not told their employer/supervisor about their condition and 11.0% anticipated leaving their job in the next year because of their arthritis.

Table 1. Sample characteristics (n = 492)*
  • *

    Total no. may be <492 due to item nonresponse. Data reported as no. (%) unless otherwise indicated. DMARD = disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; NSAID = nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug; RMT = registered massage therapist.

 Female383 (77.8)
 Male109 (22.2)
Age, mean ± SD years50.9 ± 9.3
Marital status 
 Married/living as married298 (60.6)
 Divorced/separated/widowed118 (24.0)
 Single76 (15.4)
 Secondary school or less85 (17.3)
 Some postsecondary113 (23.0)
 Postsecondary197 (40.0)
 Postgraduate95 (19.3)
Household income, $ 
 <39,99991 (18.5)
 40,000–69,999147 (29.9)
 70,000–99,999119 (24.2)
 ≥100,00093 (18.9)
Physician diagnosis 
 Inflammatory165 (33.5)
 Osteoarthritis278 (56.5)
 Both49 (10.0)
Duration, mean ± SD, years9.2 (8.8)
 DMARD125 (25.4)
 NSAID283 (57.5)
 Corticosteroids42 (8.5)
 Biologics11 (2.2)
 Pain medication51 (10.4)
Health utilization 
 Family physician397 (80.7)
 Rheumatologist203 (41.3)
 Surgeon115 (23.0)
 Other medical specialist64 (12.8)
 Physical therapist147 (29.9)
 Chiropractor78 (15.9)
 Naturopath37 (7.3)
 Other (e.g. Arthritis Society, RMT, acupuncturist)73 (12.8)
Job sector 
 Business, finance, administration164 (33.3)
 Health, science, art, sport175 (35.6)
 Sales and service102 (20.7)
 Trades, transportation, equipment operator50 (10.2)
Employer knowledge of arthritis 
 Knows334 (67.9)
 Does not know108 (22.0)
Future job expectations 
 Anticipate leaving job54 (11.0)
 Do not anticipate leaving job425 (86.4)

Table 2 presents percentages of respondents reporting the 7 work transition behaviors. On average, participants reported 1.6 work changes (SD 1.6) with >70% of participants reporting at least 1 arthritis-related work change. Approximately 28% reported 1 work transition, 18.3% reported 2 work transitions, and 24.6% reported ≥3 work transitions.

Table 2. Type and percentage of work transitions reported in the past 6 months due to arthritis*
  • *

    Data reported as no. (%) unless otherwise reported.

Occasional loss of work hours 
 Work interrupted ≥20 minutes188 (38.2)
 Days absent, mean ± SD4.56 ± 12.48
  0298 (60.6)
  125 (4.9)
  237 (7.5)
  ≥3131 (26.8)
 Use vacation days47 (9.6)
Change to type/nature of work 
 Change type of work99 (20.1)
 Unable to seek promotion or job transfer48 (9.8)
 Unable to take on extra projects or responsibilities109 (22.2)
Permanent change of work hours 
 Change work hours105 (21.3)
Respondents reporting no work transitions144 (29.3)
Total work transition score, mean ± SD1.60 (1.56)

More respondents reported occasional lost work hours in the past 6 months than changes to the type of work or permanent reductions in work hours. Specifically, both work interruptions and at least 1-day absenteeism were reported by ∼40% of respondents. Among those who reported absenteeism (n = 193), 67.9% reported being away from work 3 or more days in the past 6 months. The mean number of days absent among those reporting arthritis-related sick days was 11.6 days (SD 17.8).

Approximately 1 in 5 respondents made changes to their type of work at some point in their work life, reported being unable to take on extra projects or work responsibilities in the past 6 months, or reported reducing their work hours in the past 6 months. Using vacation days to manage arthritis and being unable to seek a promotion or job transfer in the past 6 months was reported by 10% and 9.8% of respondents, respectively. However, for both items there was a high percentage of “not applicable” responses (13.6% and 31.7%).

Bivariate regression analyses examined the relationship of total work transition scores to demographic, work limitation, and psychological variables (see Table 3). The results show that older respondents and those with OA reported fewer work transitions than younger respondents and those with inflammatory arthritis. Respondents with both inflammatory arthritis and OA reported significantly more work transitions than individuals with inflammatory arthritis alone. In addition, participants reporting greater workplace limitations, whose employers knew about their arthritis, who reported greater changed capacities and goals, had greater depression scores, and who anticipated leaving their job in the next year reported more work transitions.

Table 3. Bivariate unstandardized (b) and standardized (beta) regression coefficients for explanatory variables by total transitions score
CharacteristicReference categorybβP
Age −0.03−0.190.00
Marital statusMarried or living as married   
 Widowed, divorced, separated −0.04−0.010.79
 Never married
 Secondary or less −0.41−0.100.08
 Some postsecondary −0.32−0.090.14
 Postsecondary −0.11−0.030.58
Household income, $≥100 000   
 ≤39,999 −0.02−0.010.93
 40,000–69,999 −0.07−0.020.74
 Noninflammatory −0.41−0.130.01
 Both 0.500.100.05
Occupational fieldBusiness, finance, administration   
 Health, science, art, sport −0.19−0.060.45
 Sales and service
 Trades and transportation
Employer knows about arthritisNo0.600.160.00
Job involves physical activity
Workplace limitations 0.170.480.00
Depression 0.060.420.00
Changed capacities and goals 0.140.480.00
Future job expectationsNo1.240.250.00

Standard multivariate linear regression analysis examined the association of the predictor variables to total work transitions. Variables significant at the P < 0.10 level in the bivariate analyses were included in the multivariate analysis. The final model accounted for 38% of the variance (see Table 4). Younger respondents and those who reported greater workplace limitations were more likely to make work changes. Work changes were also associated with increased reports of depression. Diagnosis was not significantly associated with work transitions, although there was a trend for people with both OA and inflammatory arthritis to report more changes to work than those with inflammatory arthritis alone (P < 0.06).

Table 4. Multivariate unstandardized (b) and standardized (beta) regression coefficients for explanatory variables by total work transitions score
CharacteristicReference categorybβP
  1. * R2 = 0.38.

Age −0.02−0.110.00
 Noninflammatory −0.05−0.020.70
 Both 0.440.080.06
Employer knows about arthritisNo0.900.250.18
Workplace limitations
Changed capacities and goals 0.100.330.00
Future job expectationsNo4.670.980.08
Future job expectations × employer knows about arthritis −5.54−1.100.08
Future job expectations × changed capacities and goals −0.17−1.050.09
Employer knows about arthritis × changed capacities and goals −0.04−0.280.19
Future job expectations × employer knows about arthritis × changed capacities and goals 0.231.300.05

There was a significant main effect for changed capacities and goals (P < 0.001), as well as trends in the 2-way interactions: employer awareness and future expectations (P < 0.08) and changed capacities and goals and future expectations (P < 0.09). However, a significant 3-way interaction necessitates a closer examination of this effect. To facilitate understanding, the interaction was graphed (see Figures 1 and 2). Changed capacities and goals scores were dichotomized on the mean (25, >25). Figure 1 depicts the relationship of work transitions, employer awareness of arthritis, and people's perceived changed capacities and goals when respondents expected to remain employed in the future.

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Three-way interaction of mean number of work transitions by employer awareness of arthritis and perceptions of changed capacity and goals when employees expect to remain employed.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 2. Three-way interaction of mean number of work transitions by employer awareness of arthritis and perceptions of changed capacity and goals when employees expect to give up employment.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The results revealed that people who perceived their arthritis had a large impact on their capacity, yet also believed that they would be able to remain employed, made approximately the same level of work transitions, regardless of whether or not they had told their employer about their condition. Those believing arthritis had less of an impact made fewer changes overall. However, among these individuals, people who had told their employers about their condition reported somewhat more changes than those not disclosing to their employer.

A different pattern emerged when respondents anticipated leaving their job. The greatest number of work changes was reported by individuals who perceived a big impact of arthritis on their capacity and who had told their employer about their condition. Among those who anticipated leaving, but who perceived their arthritis had little impact, the opposite was true. They made more work transitions when they had not told their employer than when their employer was aware of their condition.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  7. Acknowledgements

This study extends research on arthritis and employment by looking at the ways people deal with the demands of their condition and their job by making work changes. Previous epidemiologic studies have focused on giving up employment and often have been unable to directly link work changes to arthritis. Studies using clinical samples of RA or ankylosing spondylitis patients have also emphasized work loss. The findings of the present study revealed that most respondents had made work transitions and >40% had made >1 change. The findings also point to the utility of including a greater range of personal and psychological variables to understand the impact of arthritis on employment in addition to disease and work context variables.

To frame the research, we drew on theories of behavior change and adaptation and anticipated that people would try to minimize workplace losses from arthritis (33). Support for this hypothesis was found in that respondents were more likely to report occasional lost work hours than permanent decreases in hours or changes to the type of work. Sick days and extended breaks are often available and less likely to have an impact on one's career and financial situation than other work changes. Participants may also prefer the flexibility afforded by sick days and breaks because they can draw upon them when needed and avoid them at other times. At the same time, more than one-quarter of participants noted absences from work of >3 days in the past 6 months. The interview may have captured a time of more intense disease activity among some respondents. However, if it is a common occurrence, it may not be sustainable in the long term. Longitudinal research needs to assess whether occasional lost work hours is related to other types of work transitions, including giving up employment. It would also be helpful to know whether the respondents lost wages as a result of occasional lost work hours.

As noted, previous studies have linked employment to people's well-being. In this study, respondents who reported more work transitions reported more depressive symptoms. Because the study is cross-sectional, the direction of the findings is not clear. However, other research finds that, after controlling for initial mental health, people who make work changes show more negative psychological wellbeing (12). The findings are also in keeping with research on RA in which depression was associated with work disability (50). It suggests that greater attention needs to be paid to the effects of work transitions on the psychological well-being of people with arthritis. If employment-related depression is significant, it becomes an additional factor to deal with in efforts to help people remain at or return to work.

Age was also associated with work transitions. Younger workers reported more arthritis-related work changes than older workers. In other arthritis research, younger workers were better able to remain employed (32). This may be because younger individuals were more motivated, having had fewer years of experience in the workplace and wanting to maintain a sense of identity as productive. The financial incentive for younger workers to remain working is also likely to be substantial. Older workers may perceive that they are more limited in workplace options to deal with arthritis and, instead, may pursue options such as early retirement. Older workers may also view arthritis as age normative and make fewer coping efforts to deal with it (43).

Not surprisingly, the more difficulty respondents reported with workplace activities, the more work changes they made. Occupational field, overall level of physical activity at work, and diagnosis were not significantly related to work transitions in the multivariate analyses. To understand work changes, these findings point to the importance of looking at the fit between a person's job demands and their physical capacity. By asking respondents about the amount of difficulty they experienced with specific job tasks (such as reaching, standing, sitting for long periods, scheduling demands, and the pace of work), we gained insight into the fit of the job and the individual. The concept of job fit has also been discussed in other theories of work behavior in terms of the match between vocational demands and personality (5).

The findings also suggest that to understand work changes, we need to assess people's perceptions, expectations, and decisions to disclose arthritis. The relationships among these variables were complex and did not point simply to benefits or costs to disclosing one's health to an employer. For example, most respondents expected to remain employed in the next year. Among them, more work transitions were made by people who perceived their arthritis had a substantial impact on their capacity and goals, regardless of whether their employer knew about their condition. This suggests that many respondents had the flexibility to make some work changes when their arthritis threatened their capacity, without concern that they would suffer future job recriminations. Interestingly, individuals who believed they would remain employed and whose arthritis had little impact reported more changes when they had told their employer about their condition than when they had not. This may reflect people's perception that it was safe to disclose the information; it may also reflect proactive efforts to maintain employment being made by employees and employers.

Among those expecting to leave their jobs, more work changes were reported when people believed their arthritis substantially affected their capacity and when they had told their employer. The greater number of work changes suggests that difficulties managing arthritis and employment may have reached a critical threshold in which participants or their employers did not see employment as viable in the future. Additional research needs to examine whether this was related to disease severity or specific contextual features of the workplace, including the nature of the job, workplace support, or workplace policies.

Finally, differences emerged in work changes related to future expectations among those who had not told their employers about their arthritis and who perceived little impact from their condition. On average, those who expected to remain employed made fewer work changes than those expecting to leave. The findings need to be replicated. It may be that individuals who made work changes in the absence of a substantial perceived impact of arthritis and without telling their employer about their condition were more likely to be viewed by others as malingering, poor team players, or as not committed to their jobs because they had made work changes in the absence of information that would explain their decisions. This may relate to their expectation that they would be leaving their job in the future. Research examining workplace climate and interpersonal relationships would be useful to illuminate these findings.

Several limitations in this research need to be addressed in future studies. First, although our recruitment strategy enabled us to generalize beyond a clinical sample and was comparable to other samples in terms of the age, education, marital status, income, and occupation of participants, the sample was a purposive one. The type and extent of work transitions should be replicated in other studies and patterns of work changes examined in longitudinal studies. Examining patterns of work transitions would enable us to learn about the relationship of occasional and permanent changes to work hours and of the type of work to employment loss. In addition, the results should be replicated in samples with more men and that include a greater range of health status and arthritis symptom severity measures. Also important would be to look at other changes and accommodations people with arthritis or their employers make to help individuals remain employed. These include coping efforts, such as modifying the way tasks are performed, help from coworkers, use of assistive devices, and ergonomic changes to workplace environments.

Having acknowledged some of its limitations, this study extends research on arthritis and employment by looking at ways people change their work to manage their condition and employment, as well as factors associated with work changes. The findings highlight the dynamic interplay among the arthritis limitations people report, their perceptions, and the role that others like employers play in changes to employment. They also suggest the utility of including a greater range of personal and psychological variables in addition to disease and work context variables to understand the impact of arthritis on employment.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  7. Acknowledgements

Our thanks to Jennifer Boyle, Deborah Sutton, Novlette Fraser, and the interviewers for their assistance with this research.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  7. Acknowledgements
  • 1
    Lazarus RS. Some thoughts about stress and the work situation. In: Levi L, editor. Society, stress, and disease. Vol. 4: working life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1981: p. 548.
  • 2
    Sauter SL, Murphy LR, Hurrel JJ. Prevention of work-related psychological disorders: a national strategy proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Am Psychol 1990; 45: 114658.
  • 3
    Havinghurst RJ. Developmental tasks and education. 3rd ed. New York: Davis McKay; 1972.
  • 4
    Liedberg GM, Henriksson CM. Factors of importance for work disability in women with fibromyalgia: an interview study. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47: 26674.
  • 5
    Holland JL. Making vocational choices: a theory of vocational personalities and work environments. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1985.
  • 6
    Super DE. A life-span, life-space approach to career development. J Vocational Behav 1980; 16: 28298.
  • 7
    Galinsky E. National study of the changing work force. New York: Families and Work Institute; 1993.
  • 8
    Shirom A, Mazeh T. Periodicity in seniority-job satisfaction relationship. J Vocational Behav 1988; 33: 3849.
  • 9
    Arber S. Social class, non-employment, and chronic illness: continuing the inequalities in the health debate. BMJ 1987; 294: 106973.
  • 10
    Cook DG, Cummins RO, Bartley MJ, Shaper AG. Health of unemployed middle-aged men in Great Britain. Lancet 1982; 1: 12904.
  • 11
    D'Arcy C. Unemployment and health: data and implications. Can J Public Health 1986; 77: 12431.
  • 12
    Gallo WT, Bradley EH, Siegel M, Kasl SV. Health effects of involuntary job loss among older workers: findings from the health and retirement survey. J Gerontol B Soc Sci 2000; 55B: S13140.
  • 13
    Linn MW, Sandifer R, Stein S. Effects of unemployment on mental and physical health. Am J Public Health 1985; 75: 5026.
  • 14
    Yelin E, Henke C, Epstein W. The work dynamics of the person with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1987; 30: 50712.
  • 15
    Fex E, Larsson BM, Nived K, Eberhardt K. Effect of rheumatoid arthritis on work status and social and leisure time activities in patients followed 8 years from onset. J Rheumatol 1998; 25: 4450.
  • 16
    Eberhardt K, Larsson BM, Nived K. Early rheumatoid arthritis: some social, economic, and psychological aspects. Scand J Rheumatol 1993; 22: 11923.
  • 17
    Sokka T, Kautiainen H, Mottonen T, Hannonen P. Work disability in rheumatoid arthritis 10 years after diagnosis. J Rheumatol 1999; 26: 16815.
  • 18
    Lacaille D, Hogg RS. The effect of arthritis on working life expectancy. J Rheumatol 2000; 28: 23159.
  • 19
    Reisine S, McQuillan J, Fifield J. Predictors of work disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 16307.
  • 20
    Sokka T, Pincus T. Markers for work disability in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 171822.
  • 21
    Callahan L, Block D, Pincus T. Identification of work disability in rheumatoid arthritis: physical, radiographic and laboratory variables do not add explanatory power to demographic and functional variables. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 12738.
  • 22
    Allaire SH, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Reducing work disability associated with rheumatoid arthritis: identification of additional risk factors and persons likely to benefit from intervention. Arthritis Care Res 1996; 9: 34957.
  • 23
    Mau W, Bornmann M, Weber H, Weidemann HF, Hecker H, Raspe HH. Prediction of permanent work disability in a follow-up study of early rheumatoid arthritis: results of a tree structured analysis using RECPAM. Br J Rheumatol 1996; 35: 6529.
  • 24
    Lacaille D, Sheps S, Spinelli J, Esdaile JM. Work related factors that determine risk of work disability (WD) in RA. J Rheumatol 2000; 27 Suppl: 1809.
  • 25
    Badley EM, Rasooly I, Webster GK. Relative importance of musculoskeletal disorders as a cause of chronic health problems, disability and health care utilization: findings from the 1990 Ontario Health Survey. J Rheumatol 1994; 21: 50514.
  • 26
    LaPlante MP. The demographics of disability. Milbank Q 1991; 69(Suppl 1–2): 5577.
  • 27
    Badley EM, Wang PP. Arthritis and the aging population: projections of arthritis prevalence in Canada 1991 to 2031. J Rheumatol 1998; 25: 13844.
  • 28
    Badley EM. Population projections and the effect on rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 1991; 50: 36.
  • 29
    Gabriel SE, Crowson CS, Campion ME, O'Fallon MO. Indirect and nonmedical costs among people with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis compared with nonarthritic controls. J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 438.
  • 30
    Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Spoorenberg A, Schouten H, Rutten-van Mölken M, et al. Work status and productivity costs due to ankylosing spondylitis: comparison of three European countries. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 42937.
  • 31
    Yelin E, Sonneborn D, Trupin L. The prevalence and impact of accommodations on the employment of persons 51-61 years of age with musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis Care Res 2000; 13: 16876.
  • 32
    Reisine S, Fifield J, Walsh SJ, Feinn R. Factors associated with continued employment among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a survival model. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 24008.
  • 33
    Baltes PB, Baltes MM. Psychological perspectives on successful aging: the model of selective optimization with compensation. In: Baltes PB, Baltes MM, editors. Successful aging: perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. p. 134.
  • 34
    Baltes PB. On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. Am Psychol 1997; 52: 36680.
  • 35
    Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977; 84: 191215.
  • 36
    Taylor SE. Adjustment to threatening events: a theory of cognitive adaptation. Am Psychol 1983; 38: 116173.
  • 37
    Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.
  • 38
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley; 1975.
  • 39
    Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ Monthly 1974; 2: 324473.
  • 40
    Maddux JE, Rogers RW. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 1983; 19: 46979.
  • 41
    Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The job content questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol 1998; 3: 32255.
  • 42
    Maddux JE, Brawley L, Boykin A. Self-efficacy and healthy behavior: prevention, promotion, and detection. In: Maddux JE, editor. Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum Press; 1995.
  • 43
    Gignac MAM, Cott C, Badley EM. Adaptation to disability: applying selective optimization with compensation to the behaviors of older adults with osteoarthritis. Psychol Aging 2002; 17: 5204.
  • 44
    Sutton D, Gignac MAM, Cott C. Medical and everyday assistive device use among older adults with arthritis. Can J Aging. 2002; 21: 53548.
  • 45
    Lerner D, Reed JI, Massarotti E, Wester LM, Burke TA. The work limitations questionnaire's validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002: 55: 197208.
  • 46
    Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measurement 1977; 1: 385401.
  • 47
    Canadian Aging Research Network (CARNET). Work and family: the survey findings. Guelph, Ontario: Gerontology Research Centre; 1993.
  • 48
    Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE. Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. Boston: PWS-Kent; 1988.
  • 49
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 3rd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1996.
  • 50
    Fifield J, Reisine ST, Grady K. Work disability and the experience of pain and depression in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 1991; 33: 57985.