The impact of Raynaud’s phenomenon on work ability – a longitudinal study

Table 2 Simple linear regression for the Work Ability Score

		Unstandardized coefficients			Standardized coefficients
			95% CI
Gender	Variable	B	Lower	Upper	Beta	t-ratio	p value	R²
Women	Raynaud’s phenomenon (yes versus no)	0.45	0.07	0.62	0.05	2.49	0.013	0.002
	Age (years)	− 0.07	− 0.08	− 0.07	− 0.38	− 20.66	< 0.001	0.147
	Body mass index (kg/m²)	− 0.07	− 0.09	− 0.06	− 0.15	− 7.57	< 0.001	0.023
	Physical workload (high or medium versus low)	− 0.59	− 0.79	− 0.38	− 0.12	− 5.63	< 0.001	0.015
	Cardiovascular disease (yes versus no)	− 1.53	− 1.77	− 1.29	− 0.29	− 12.53	< 0.001	0.061
	Perceived stress (high versus low)	− 0.48	− 0.70	− 0.26	− 0.09	− 4.24	< 0.001	0.007
Men	Raynaud’s phenomenon (yes versus no)	− 0.24	− 0.51	0.03	− 0.04	− 1.75	0.080	0.001
	Age (years)	− 0.07	− 0.08	− 0.07	− 0.45	− 23.26	< 0.001	0.198
	Body mass index (kg/m²)	− 0.05	− 0.07	− 0.03	− 0.09	− 4.05	< 0.001	0.007
	Physical workload (high or medium versus low)	− 0.62	− 0.80	− 0.43	− 0.16	− 6.66	< 0.001	0.024
	Cardiovascular disease (yes versus no)	− 1.22	− 1.42	− 1.02	− 0.25	− 12.01	< 0.001	0.064
	Perceived stress (high versus low)	0.04	− 0.22	0.30	0.01	0.28	0.777	< 0.001

All variables have been analyzed separately, and results stratified by gender. B unstandardized coefficients, 95% CI ninety − five percent confidence interval for the unstandardized coefficients, Beta standardized coefficients, R.² adjusted coefficient of determination

ISSN: 1745-6673