Hila Jazayeri1, Zareen Ahmad1, Monique Gignac2 and Sindhu Johnson3, 1University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Schroeder Arthritis Institute, Krembil Research Institute, Toronto Western and Mount Sinai Hospitals; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Background/Purpose: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a systemic rheumatic disease that restricts participation in various life roles, including in the workplace. Our objectives were to identify the job sectors where people with SSc work, and comparatively evaluate health factors, work factors and workplace accommodations between those who are employed and not employed.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of employed and unemployed individuals with SSc. Demographics, sector of employment, health factors, non-disease related variables, frequency of disease flares, and the need, availability and use of various workplace supports were collected.
Results: We report 140 participants (108 (77.1%) women, 32 (22.9%) men) where 110 (78.6%) were employed and 30 (21.4%) not employed. Sectors in which the participants worked were Education/Health/Sciences/Arts (n=51 (36.4%), Sales/Retail (n=23, 16.5%), Banking/Insurance/Business/Technology (n=22, 15.7%), Government (n=15, 10.7%), Construction/Utilities (n=10, 7.1%), and Manufacturing/Agriculture/Mining/ Logging (n=10, 7.1%), with no difference in employment across job sectors (p=0.69). The employed have a significantly lower mean age (48.4 versus 54.3 years), higher level of education (77.3% post-secondary education versus 22.7% without post-secondary education), and higher income (44.8% income >$100,000, 32.3% income $60,000-$100,000, 22.9% income of $10,000-$59,999). Those who had no flares had the highest employment rate (41.7%), compared to those who had 1-2 flares (35.2%) and ≥3 flares (23.1%). The availability of workplace accommodations differed significantly between the employed and unemployed: flexible hours (75.2% versus 41.4%, p=0.005), more rest periods (81.8% versus 46.7%, p=0.0001), special equipment (87.5% versus 50%, p< 0.0001), and alternative work-schedule flexibility (70.2% versus 38.8%, p=0.003).
Conclusion: Health factors alone do not differentiate those who are employed and not employed. This study lays the groundwork for where SSc-specific efforts in workplace policies and practices should be directed.
H. Jazayeri: None; Z. Ahmad: None; M. Gignac: None; S. Johnson: None.