Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Oct;63(10):1357–1364. doi: 10.1002/acr.20526

Table 3.

Functioning at follow-up based on obesity status at baseline (n = 568)

Obese (BMI ≥ 30) Obese (BMI ≥ 26.8)
Unadjusted
Adjusted1
Adjusted2
Unadjusted
Adjusted1
Adjusted2
No
(n=403)
Yes
(n=165)
Difference p§ β (p) β (p) No
(n=332)
Yes
(n=236)
Difference p§ β (p) β (p)
SF-36 PF 41.7
(12.3) *
32.7
(11.3)
−9.0 <.0001 −2.7
(.001)
−2.4
(.003)
42.6
(12.1)
34.2
(11.9)
−8.4 <.0001 −2.0
(.01)
−1.7
(.03)
VLA mean
difficulty
0.67
(0.62)
1.03
(0.59)
+0.36 <.0001 0.12
(.002)
0.10
(.01)
0.65
(0.61)
0.95
(0.63)
+0.30 <.0001 .06
(.13)
.04
(.32)
OR (95% CI)
OR (95% CI)
OR (95% CI)
OR (95% CI)
Currently employed 55.0%
(191)
35.0%
(49)
−20% <.0001 0.5
(0.3, 0.8)
0.6
(0.3, 0.9)
58.2%
(170)
35.9%
(70)
−22.3% <.0001 0.4
(0.3, 0.7)
0.5
(0.3, 0.8)
1

Adjusted for baseline value.

2

Adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, education, income, marital status, disease duration, smoking, glucocorticoid use, SLAQ score, depression, comorbid conditions, and baseline functioning in multivariate linear or logistic regression analyses

*

mean (SD)

% (n). Includes only women younger than age 65 at follow-up (n = 487).

§

p-value from t-test or chi-square analysis comparing obese yes/no.

Note: Bolded values represent statistically significant differences between obese/non-obese