Does sickness presenteeism have an impact on future general health?

  • Gunnar Bergström
  • Lennart Bodin
  • Jan Hagberg
  • Tomas Lindh
  • Gunnar Aronsson
  • Malin Josephson
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The primary aim of this prospective study was to investigate whether working despite illness, so called “sickness presenteeism”, has an impact on the future general health of two different working populations during a follow-up period of 3 years.

Methods

The study was based on two bodies of data collected at a number of Swedish workplaces from 1999 to 2003. The first material comprised 6,901 employees from the public sector and the second 2,862 subjects from the private sector. A comprehensive survey was issued three times: at baseline, after 18 months and after 3 years. Apart from the explanatory variable sickness presenteeism, several potential confounders were considered. The outcome variable was good/excellent versus fair/poor self-reported health.

Results

Sickness presenteeism at baseline was consistently found to heighten the risk of fair/poor health at both the 18-month and 3-year follow ups even after adjusting for the detected confounders.

Conclusions

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to show that sickness presenteeism appears to be an independent risk factor for future fair/poor general health.

Keywords

Sickness presenteeism Prospective studies Health status Risk factors Workplace 

References

  1. Aronsson G, Gustafsson K (2005) Sickness presenteeism: prevalence, attendance-pressure factors, and an outline of a model for research. J Occup Environ Med 47(9):958–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronsson G, Gustafsson K, Dallner M (2000) Sick but yet at work. An empirical study of sickness presenteeism. J Epidemiol Community Health 54(7):502–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronsson G, Svensson L, Gustafsson K (2003) Unwinding, recuperation, and health among compulsory school and high school teachers in Sweden. Int J Stress Manag 10:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum A, Posluszny DM (1999) Health psychology: mapping biobehavioral contributions to health and illness. Annu Rev Psychol 50:137–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergstrom G, Bjorklund C, Fried I, Lisspers J, Nathell L, Hermansson U et al (2008) A comprehensive workplace intervention and its outcome with regard to lifestyle, health and sick leave: the AHA study. Work 31(2):167–180Google Scholar
  6. Bergström G, Bodin L, Hagberg J, Aronsson G, Josephson M (2009) Sickness presenteeism today, sickness absenteeism tomorrow? A prospective study on sickness presenteeism and future sickness absenteeism. J Environ Occup Med 51 (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Burell G (2002) Is it possible to change stress-related behaviour? (In Swedish). In: Leander (ed) Rushed, beleaguered—burned out? Researchers discuss strategies to cope with harmful stress. Swedish Research Council, Stockholm, pp 55–69Google Scholar
  8. Caverley N, Cunningham JB, MacGregor JN (2007) Sickness presenteeism, sickness absenteeism, and health following restructuring in a public service organization. J Manag Stud 44:304–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dallner M, Elo A-L Gamberale F, Hottinen V, Knardahl S, Lindström K, Skogstad A, Orhede E (2000) Validation of the general nordic questionnaire (QPSNordic) for psychological and social factors at work. Nord 2000:12. Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank O (2000) Structural plots of multivariate binary data. J Soc Biol Struct 1:1–19Google Scholar
  11. Goetzel RZ, Long SR, Ozminkowski RJ, Hawkins K, Wang S, Lynch W (2004) Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers. J Occup Environ Med 46(4):398–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grinyer A, Singleton V (2000) Sickness absence as risk-taking behaviour: a study of organisational and cultural factors in the public sector. Health Risk Soc 2:7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hemp P (2004) Presenteeism: at work—but out of it. Harv Bus Rev 82(10):49–58, 155Google Scholar
  14. Johansson G, Lundberg I (2004) Adjustment latitude and attendance requirements as determinants of sickness absence or attendance. Empirical tests of the illness flexibility model. Soc Sci Med 58(10):1857–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karasek R, Theorell T (1990) Healthy work. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  16. Kivimaki M, Head J, Ferrie JE, Shipley MJ, Vahtera J, Marmot MG (2003) Sickness absence as a global measure of health: evidence from mortality in the Whitehall II prospective cohort study. BMJ 327(7411):364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kivimäki M, Head J, Ferrie JE, Hemingway H, Shipley MJ, Vahtera J, Marmot M (2005) Working while ill as a risk factor for serious coronary events: The Whitehall II study. Am J Public Health 95:98–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kristensen Tage S (1991) Sickness absence and work strain among Danish slaughterhouse workers: an analysis of absence from work regarded as coping behaviour. Soc Sci Med 32:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindberg P, Josephson M, Alfredsson L, Vingard E (2006) Promoting excellent work ability and preventing poor work ability: the same determinants? Results from the Swedish HAKuL study. Occup Environ Med 63(2):113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD (2004) A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 22(3):165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Main CJ, Williams AC (2002) Musculoskeletal pain. BMJ 325(7363):534–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McEwen BS (1998) Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N Engl J Med 338(3):171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McEwen BS (2008) Central effects of stress hormones in health and disease: understanding the protective and damaging effects of stress and stress mediators. Eur J Pharmacol 583(2–3):174–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD (1994) The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 32:40–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKevitt C, Morgan M, Dundas R, Holland WW (1997) Sickness absence and ‘working through’ illness: a comparison of two professional groups. J Public Health Med 19(3):295–300Google Scholar
  26. Munir F, Yarker J, Haslam C (2007) Sickness absence management: encouraging attendance or ‘risk-taking’ presenteeism in employees with chronic illness? Disabil Rehabil 30(19):1461–1472Google Scholar
  27. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prasad M, Wahlqvist P, Shikiar R, Shih YC (2004) A review of self-report instruments measuring health-related work productivity: a patient-reported outcomes perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 22(4):225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosvold EO, Bjertness E (2001) Physicians who do not take sick leave: hazardous heroes? Scand J Public Health 29(1):71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, De La Fuente JR, Grant M (1993) Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction 88:791–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schutte N, Toppinen S, Kalimo R, Schaufeli W (2000) The factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) across occupational groups and nations. J Occup Organ Psychol 73:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Setterlind S, Larsson G (1995) The stress profile: a psychosocial approach to measuring stress. Stress Med 11(2):85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Morganstein D (2003) Lost productive work time costs from health conditions in the United States: results from the American Productivity Audit. J Occup Environ Med 45(12):1234–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE Jr (1995) The Swedish SF-36 health survey. I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med 41:1349–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van den Heuvel SG, Ijmker S, Blatter BM, de Korte EM (2007) Loss of productivity due to neck/shoulder symptoms and hand/arm symptoms: results from the PROMO-study. J Occup Rehabil 17(3):370–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Tulder M, Becker A, Bekkering T, Breen A, del Real MT, Hutchinson A, Koes B, Laerum E, Malmivaara A (2006) European guidelines for the management of acute nonspecific low back pain in primary care, Chapter 3. Eur Spine J 15(Suppl 2):S169–S191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Voss M, Floderus B, Diderichsen F (2004) How do job characteristics, family situation, domestic work, and lifestyle factors relate to sickness absence? A study based on Sweden Post. J Occup Environ Med 46(11):1134–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vroome Ernest de (2006) Prevalence of sickness absence and “presenteeism”. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2006/07/NL0607019I.htm
  39. Waldenstrom M, Theorell T, Ahlberg G, Josephson M, Nise P, Waldenstrom K, Vingard E (2002) Assessment of psychological and social current working conditions in epidemiological studies: experiences from the MUSIC-Norrtalje study. Scand J Public Health 30(2):94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wiktorin C, Vingard E, Mortimer M, Pernold G, Wigaeus-Hjelm E, Kilbom A, Alfredsson L (1999) Interview versus questionnaire for assessing physical loads in the population-based MUSIC-Norrtalje Study. Am J Ind Med 35(5):441–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zou G (2004) A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 159(7):702–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gunnar Bergström
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lennart Bodin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Hagberg
    • 2
  • Tomas Lindh
    • 3
  • Gunnar Aronsson
    • 4
  • Malin Josephson
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Intervention and Implementation Research, Department of Public Health SciencesKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Section for Personal Injury Prevention, Department of Clinical NeuroscienceKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Centre for Public HealthStockholm County CouncilStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Section of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Medical SciencesUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations