Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 501–512 | Cite as

Challenges to Remaining at Work with Common Health Problems: What Helps and What Influence Do Organisational Policies Have?

  • Rhiannon Buck
  • Carol Porteous
  • Gwenllian Wynne-Jones
  • Katie Marsh
  • Ceri J. Phillips
  • Chris J. Main


Introduction: Common health problems have a significant impact on work productivity (presenteeism), and sickness absence. The aim of this study was to examine the attitudes and beliefs of employees in the public sector about common health problems and work using the Flags system as a conceptual framework to identify problems and potential solutions. Method: 63 employees took part in 14 focus groups in two public sector organisations. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically using NVivo. Results: The study confirmed the importance of heath-focused clinical factors (Yellow flags), perceptions of work (Blue flags), and more objective characteristics of work and organisational policies (Black flags), which emerged as major themes. The social and moral norms surrounding sickness absence and presenteeism were frequently discussed, including the impact of absence on colleagues, guilt, legitimising illness, and trust. There were interactions between the different Flags, often mediated by managers via their relationships with employees and their role in implementing organisational policy. Conclusions: The Flags system was useful as a conceptual framework in this context for identifying a number of obstacles to working with health problems, many of which were potentially modifiable on worker, workplace, or wider systems levels.


Common health problems Flags Work Presenteeism Absenteeism 


  1. 1.
    Buck R, Barnes MC, Cohen D, Aylward M. Common health problems, yellow flags and functioning in a community setting. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:235–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collins JJ, Baase CM, Sharda CE, Ozminkowski RJ, Nicholson S, Billotti GM, et al. The assessment of chronic health conditions on work performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47(6):547–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dew K, Keefe V, Small K. ‘Choosing’ to work when sick: workplace presenteeism. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(10):2273–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hemp P. Presenteeism: at work–but out of it. Harv Bus Rev. 2004;82(10):49–58, 155.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johns G. Absenteeism and presenteeism: not at work or not working well. In: Cooper CL, Barling J, editors. The Sage handbook of organizational behaviour. London: Sage; 2008. p. 160–77.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phillips C. The costs and burden of chronic pain. Rev Pain. 2009;3(1):1–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phillips C, Main C, Buck R, Aylward M, Wynne-Jones G, Farr A. Prioritising pain in policy making: the need for a whole systems perspective. Health Policy. 2008;88:166–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waddell G, Aylward M. The scientific and conceptual basis of incapacity benefits. London: The Stationary Office; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waddell G. Preventing incapacity in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Br Med Bull. 2006;77–78:55–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buck R, Wynne-Jones G, Varnava A, Main CJ, Phillips CJ. Working with musculoskeletal pain. Rev Pain. 2009;3(1):6–10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Waddell G, Burton AK. Is work good for your health and wellbeing? London: TSO; 2006.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wynne-Jones G, Buck R, Varnava A, Phillips C, Main CJ. Impacts on work absence and performance: what really matters? Occup Med (Lond). 2009;59(8):556–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johns G. Presenteeism in the workplace: a review and research agenda. J Organ Behav. 2010; Advanced view published online July 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aronsson G, Gustafsson K. Sickness presenteeism: prevalence, attendance-pressure factors, and an outline of a model for research. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47(9):958–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Young AE, Roessler RT, Wasiak R, McPherson KM, van Poppel MN, Anema JR. A developmental conceptualization of return to work. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):557–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Main CJ, Sullivan MJ, Watson PJ. Pain and work: organisational perspectives. Pain management: practical application of the biopsychosocial perspective in clinical and occupational settings. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2007. p. 369–91.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wade DT, Halligan PW. Do biomedical models of illness make for good healthcare systems? BMJ. 2004;329(7479):1398–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barnes MC, Buck R, Williams G, Webb K, Aylward M. Beliefs about common health problems and work: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(4):657–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johansson G, Lundberg I. Adjustment latitude and attendance requirements as determinants of sickness absence or attendance. Empirical tests of the illness flexibility model. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(10):1857–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kendall N, Burton AK, Main CJ, Watson PJ. Tackling musculoskeletal problems: a guide for clinc and workplace (A new method of identifying obstacles using the psychsocial falgs framework). London: The Stationary Office; 2009.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Main CJ, Burton AK. Economic and occupational influences on pain and disability. In: Main CJ, Spanswick CC, editors. Pain management: an interdisciplinary approach. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000. p. 63–87.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wynne-Jones G, Varnava A, Buck R, Karanika-Murray M, Griffiths A, Phillips C, et al. The examination of the work organisation assessment questionnaire in public sector workers. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(5):586–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kendall N, Linton SL, Main CJ. Guide to assessing psychosocial yellow flags in acute low back pain: risk factors for long term disability and work loss. Wellington, New Zealand: Accident Rehabilitation and Compenstaino Insurance Compensation of New Zealand and the National Health Committee; 1997.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shaw WS, van der Windt DA, Main CJ, Loisel P, Linton SJ. Early patient screening and intervention to address individual-level occupational factors (“blue flags”) in back disability. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(1):64–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kitzinger J. The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research and participants. Soc Health Illn. 1994;16(1):103–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morgan DL. Focus groups. Ann Rev Sociol. 1996;22:129–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Blaxter M. Health. Cambridge: Policy Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Finch J. The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology. 1987;21:105–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dey I. Qualitative data anlysis: a user friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge; 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wynne-Jones G, Katie Webb, Buck R, Cooper L, Button L, Main CJ, Phillips CJ. What happens to work if you’re unwell? Beliefs and attitudes of managers and employees with musculoskeletal pain in public sector organisations, J Occup Rehabil. 2010. Online first doi:10.1007/s10926-010-9251-7.
  31. 31.
    Grove B, Secker J, Seebohm P. New thinking about mental health and employment. Oxford: Radcliff Publishing; 2005.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shaw WS, Means-Christensen AJ, Slater MA, Webster JS, Patterson TL, Grant I, Garfin SR, Wahlgren DR, Patel S, Atkinson HJ. Psychiatric disorders and risk of transition to chronicity in men with first onset low back pain. Pain Med. 2010;11:1391–1400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parsons T. The social system. New York: Free Press; 1951.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The “toxic dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20:349–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ståhl C, Svensson T, Petersson G, Ekberg K. The work ability divide: holistic and reductionistic approaches in Swedish interdisciplinary rehabilitation teams. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:264–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rhiannon Buck
    • 1
  • Carol Porteous
    • 2
  • Gwenllian Wynne-Jones
    • 3
  • Katie Marsh
    • 4
  • Ceri J. Phillips
    • 5
  • Chris J. Main
    • 3
  1. 1.Department for HealthUniversity of BathBathUK
  2. 2.Department of Primary Care and Public Health SciencesKings College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Primary Care SciencesKeele UniversityNewcastle-under-LymeUK
  4. 4.Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, School of MedicineCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  5. 5.College of Human and Health SciencesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations