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

Table 3 Multiple 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)	0.10	− 0.16	0.35	0.02	0.74	0.459
	Age (years)	− 0.05	− 0.06	− 0.04	− 0.26	− 11.93	< 0.001
	Body mass index (kg/m²)	− 0.02	− 0.04	− 0.01	− 0.05	− 2.26	0.024
	Physical workload (high or medium versus low)	− 0.47	− 0.67	− 0.27	− 0.10	− 4.70	< 0.001
	Cardiovascular disease (yes versus no)	− 0.55	− 0.81	− 0.30	− 0.09	− 4.19	< 0.001
	Perceived stress (high versus low)	− 0.54	− 0.74	− 0.34	− 0.11	− 5.27	< 0.001
	Explained variance proportion for full model							0.12
Men	Raynaud’s phenomenon (yes versus no)	− 0.15	− 0.41	0.11	− 0.03	− 1.14	0.254
	Age (years)	− 0.05	− 0.06	− 0.04	− 0.32	− 13.42	< 0.001
	Body mass index (kg/m²)	− 0.01	− 0.03	0.02	− 0.02	− 0.63	0.530
	Physical workload (high or medium versus low)	− 0.51	− 0.67	− 0.33	− 0.13	− 5.75	< 0.001
	Cardiovascular disease (yes versus no)	− 0.45	− 0.67	− 0.22	− 0.10	− 3.95	< 0.001
	Perceived stress (high versus low)	− 0.34	− 0.58	− 0.11	− 0.07	− 2.88	0.004
	Explained variance proportion for full model							0.16

All variables have been included simultaneously, 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