4.7 Review

Employment and work disability in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review

Journal

RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 281-284

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken477

Keywords

Systemic lupus erythematosus; Employment; Work disability

Categories

Funding

  1. London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. Many studies have provided information on employment and work disability (WD) rates in patients with SLE, yet are often limited by small sample sizes, poor generalizability or fail to examine the risks and outcomes of WD. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on WD in SLE to identify a more generalizable point estimate and range of WD in SLE patients. Methods. A search was conducted using Medline, EMBase, PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify publications related to SLE and employment and/or WD. Characteristics of the study samples and employment/WD data were extracted. Descriptive statistics, a test for heterogeneity and random effects models were performed to obtain pooled estimates of employment and WD rates for all patients. Results. Twenty-six studies with a total of 9886 SLE patients were found; however, not all patients were reviewed for WD. Larger studies demonstrated the prevalence of WD at 2040, and pooled estimates found that 46 (95 CI 40, 52) were employed with SLE and 34 (95 CI 24, 44) had WD. WD was related to psychosocial and disease-related factors including age, race, socioeconomic status (SES), education, disease activity and duration, pain, fatigue, anxiety and neurocognitive involvement. Conclusions. This study provides strong evidence that costs of SLE may be very high due to job loss at a younger age in SLE patients, and identifies some risk factors associated with WD, which should be targeted by interventions aimed at preventing job loss.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available