4.1 Article

The Relation between Presenteeism and Different Types of Future Sickness Absence

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 132-141

出版社

JAPAN SOC OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
DOI: 10.1539/joh.12-0164-OA

关键词

Longitudinal study; Organization of work; Presenteeism; Sickness absence

资金

  1. Belgian Federal Public Service Employment, Labor and Social Dialogue
  2. European Social Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the relation between sickness presenteeism and different types of future sickness absence in 2,983 Belgian middle-aged workers. Methods: Data were collected from 1,372 male and 1,611 female workers. Presenteeism was assessed by a single question, evaluating the frequency of occasions of going at work, despite illness, during the preceding year. Prospective, registered sickness absence data were collected during 12 months of follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between presenteeism and short/long spells of absenteeism and high sickness absence frequency. Results: High rates (>5 times) of presenteeisnn at baseline were significantly and independently associated with both long spells of sickness absence (at least 15 consecutive sick leave days) (men, OR=2.73, 95%CI=1.24-6.03; women, OR=2.40, 95%CI=1.31-4.40) and short spells of sickness absence (sick leave between 1 and 3 days) (men, OR=2.38, 95%CI=1.25-4.51; women, OR=1.90, 95%CI=1.17-3.11) in both genders during one year follow-up. Moderate rates (2-5 times) of presenteeism were significantly associated with long spells of sickness absence only in the male group (OR=1.90, 95%CI= 1.21-2.97). With regard to high sickness frequency (at least 3 sick leave episodes), a significant and positive association with high rates of presenteeism was demonstrated only in the female workers (OR=2.38, 95%CI=1.40-4.04). Conclusions: These results suggest that presenteeism was related to different types of future sickness absence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据