Impact of Q-fever fatigue syndrome on patients' work status.
Job satisfaction
Q-fever
QFS
Work Ability Index
working hours
Journal
Occupational medicine (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1471-8405
Titre abrégé: Occup Med (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9205857
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Dec 2020
12 Dec 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
20
10
2020
medline:
10
8
2021
entrez:
19
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Chronic illnesses can increase the risk of unemployment, but evidence on the specific impact of Q-fever fatigue syndrome (QFS) on work is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe and quantify the impact of QFS on work. Changes in work status from 1 year prior to 4 years after acute Q-fever infection of QFS patients were retrospectively collected with a self-report questionnaire measuring employment status and hours of paid work per week. In addition, information on work ability, job satisfaction and need for recovery after work was collected in 2016. Data were compared to participants from the general population. The proportion of employed QFS patients from 1 year prior to 4 years after acute infection decreased from 78 to 41%, while remaining relatively constant in the general population (82 to 78%). Working QFS patients showed a decrease in mean hours of paid work from 35 to 22 h per week, which is significantly steeper compared to the general population (31-28 h per week) (P < 0.001). QFS patients showed a significantly lower work ability (P < 0.001), lower job satisfaction (P = 0.006) and greater need for recovery (P < 0.001) compared to the general population. The number of QFS patients with paid work decreased over the years, while patients who continue to work experience lower work ability, job satisfaction and increased need for recovery. Occupational physicians should be aware of the occurrence and severity of the impact of QFS on work, even after many years.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Chronic illnesses can increase the risk of unemployment, but evidence on the specific impact of Q-fever fatigue syndrome (QFS) on work is lacking.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to describe and quantify the impact of QFS on work.
METHODS
METHODS
Changes in work status from 1 year prior to 4 years after acute Q-fever infection of QFS patients were retrospectively collected with a self-report questionnaire measuring employment status and hours of paid work per week. In addition, information on work ability, job satisfaction and need for recovery after work was collected in 2016. Data were compared to participants from the general population.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The proportion of employed QFS patients from 1 year prior to 4 years after acute infection decreased from 78 to 41%, while remaining relatively constant in the general population (82 to 78%). Working QFS patients showed a decrease in mean hours of paid work from 35 to 22 h per week, which is significantly steeper compared to the general population (31-28 h per week) (P < 0.001). QFS patients showed a significantly lower work ability (P < 0.001), lower job satisfaction (P = 0.006) and greater need for recovery (P < 0.001) compared to the general population.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The number of QFS patients with paid work decreased over the years, while patients who continue to work experience lower work ability, job satisfaction and increased need for recovery. Occupational physicians should be aware of the occurrence and severity of the impact of QFS on work, even after many years.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33073289
pii: 5929827
doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqaa166
pmc: PMC7732754
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
578-585Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine.
Références
Epidemiol Infect. 2011 Jan;139(1):1-12
pubmed: 20920383
BMC Public Health. 2015 Oct 12;15:1045
pubmed: 26458894
Scand J Public Health. 2015 May;43(3):294-301
pubmed: 25724468
Sociol Methodol. 2017 Aug;47(1):307-344
pubmed: 31274937
Occup Med (Lond). 2005 Jan;55(1):20-31
pubmed: 15699087
Eur J Public Health. 2012 Dec;22(6):814-9
pubmed: 22315459
J Appl Psychol. 2005 Jan;90(1):53-76
pubmed: 15641890
Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999 Oct;12(4):518-53
pubmed: 10515901
Rev Infect Dis. 1983 Jul-Aug;5(4):790-800
pubmed: 6622891
Occup Environ Med. 2014 Apr;71(4):295-301
pubmed: 24169931
BMC Public Health. 2013 May 24;13:503
pubmed: 23706106
Occup Environ Med. 2003 Jun;60 Suppl 1:i3-9
pubmed: 12782740
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Nov;69(11):1058-65
pubmed: 26112957
PLoS One. 2016 May 25;11(5):e0155884
pubmed: 27223465
J Occup Rehabil. 2014 Sep;24(3):563-72
pubmed: 24322825
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Oct;28(10):1130-6
pubmed: 27340897
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2014 Sep;40(5):473-82
pubmed: 24973976
Mem Cognit. 1983 Mar;11(2):114-20
pubmed: 6865744
Occup Environ Med. 2002 Oct;59(10):712-3
pubmed: 12356934
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(48):A5258
pubmed: 23191971
BMC Infect Dis. 2013 Mar 27;13:157
pubmed: 23536997
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005 Feb;44(2):202-6
pubmed: 15454630
J Psychosom Res. 2019 Jun;121:37-45
pubmed: 31006533