Dataset Information

Who gains the most from improving working conditions? Health-related absenteeism and presenteeism due to stress at work.

ABSTRACT: Work stress-related productivity losses represent a substantial economic burden. In this study, we estimate the effects of social and task-related stressors and resources at work on health-related productivity losses caused by absenteeism and presenteeism. We also explore the interaction effects between job stressors, job resources and personal resources and estimate the costs of work stress. Work stress is defined as exposure to an unfavorable combination of high job stressors and low job resources. The study is based on a repeated survey assessing work productivity and workplace characteristics among Swiss employees. We use a representative cross-sectional data set and a longitudinal data set and apply both OLS and fixed effects models. We find that an increase in task-related and social job stressors increases health-related productivity losses, whereas an increase in social job resources and personal resources (measured by occupational self-efficacy) reduces these losses. Moreover, we find that job stressors have a stronger effect on health-related productivity losses for employees lacking personal and job resources, and that employees with high levels of job stressors and low personal resources will profit the most from an increase in job resources. Productivity losses due to absenteeism and presenteeism attributable to work stress are estimated at 195 Swiss francs per person and month. Our study has implications for interventions aiming to reduce health absenteeism and presenteeism.

SUBMITTER: Brunner B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6803571 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Who gains the most from improving working conditions? Health-related absenteeism and presenteeism due to stress at work.

Brunner Beatrice B Igic Ivana I Keller Anita C AC Wieser Simon S

The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care 20190715 8

Work stress-related productivity losses represent a substantial economic burden. In this study, we estimate the effects of social and task-related stressors and resources at work on health-related productivity losses caused by absenteeism and presenteeism. We also explore the interaction effects between job stressors, job resources and personal resources and estimate the costs of work stress. Work stress is defined as exposure to an unfavorable combination of high job stressors and low job resou ...[more]

PMID: 31309366

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent studies suggest that better outcomes in work productivity following spine surgery eventually offset the higher cost of treatment. By analyzing preoperative and postoperative changes in work productivity, studies can determine if surgery is cost-effective and give patients valuable information about treatment. Prior studies reviewing outcomes in work performance after spine surgery have largely excluded patients on workers' compensation from the overall cost analysis. A retrospective review of 92 eligible patients was conducted. Evaluation of the EHR identified presenteeism and absenteeism from designated work restrictions. Statistical analyses were conducted using JMP Pro 17. About 84 (83%) spinal surgery cases were able to return to work, 60 (59%) were able to return to work with no restrictions, 26 (26%) received permanent work restrictions, and 12 (12%) were still undergoing treatment. 86 (85%) experienced presenteeism and 99 (98%) experienced absenteeism. Of the cases that were able to return to work without permanent work restrictions, the mean presenteeism length postoperatively was 287.4 days (median 191 days) and the mean absenteeism length postoperatively was 232.5 days (median 142 days). 72 patients were identified as having sedentary or nonsedentary labor. After excluding outliers, the average return-to-work length was 988.62 days for patients with sedentary employment types and 952.15 days for patients with nonsedentary employment types (p=.116). Following spinal surgery, our worker's compensation patient population's return-to-work rate was at an average of 232.5 days (median of 142 days) for 83% of patients included in this study. This exhibited worse outcomes than a previous study's measurement excluding worker's compensation patients. Presenteeism length within our population contributed more to decreased work productivity postoperatively than absenteeism length. Our results found no significant difference in return-to-work length between patients with sedentary and nonsedentary employment types.

Project description:Background contextHealth can impact work performance through absenteeism, time spent away from work, and presenteeism, inhibited at-work performance. Low back pain is common and costly, both in terms of direct medical expenditures and indirect reduced work performance.PurposeSurgery for lumbar spinal pathology is an important part of treatment for patients who do not respond to nonsurgical management. While the indirect costs of return to work and absenteeism among employed patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery have been studied, little work has been done to quantify presenteeism before and after lumbar spine surgery.Study design/settingProspective cohort study at a single high-volume urban musculoskeletal specialty hospital.Patient samplePatients undergoing single-level lumbar spinal fusion and/or decompression surgery.Outcome measuresPresenteeism and absenteeism were measured using the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire before surgery, as well as 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery.MethodsAverage presenteeism and absenteeism were evaluated at pre-surgical baseline and each follow-up timepoint. Monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism were calculated before surgery and 12 months after surgery. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools with support from Clinical and Translational Science Center grant, UL1TR002384. One author discloses royalties, private investments, consulting fees, speaking/teaching arrangements, travel, board of directorship, and scientific advisory board membership totaling >$300,000.ResultsWe enrolled 134 employed surgical patients, among whom 115 (86%) responded at 6 weeks, 105 (78%) responded at 6 months, and 115 (86%) responded at 12 months. Preoperatively, mean age was 56.4 years (median 57.5), and 41.0% were women; 68 (50.7%) had only decompressions, while 66 (49.3%) had fusions. Among respondents at each time point, 98%, 92%, and 92% were still employed, among whom 76%, 96%, and 96% had resumed working, respectively (median 29 days). Average at-work performance among working patients (who responded at each pair of timepoints) moved from 75.4 to 78.7 between baseline and 6 weeks, 71.8 to 85.9 between baseline and 6 months, and 73.0 to 88.1 between baseline and 12 months. Gains were concentrated among the 52.0% of patients whose at-work performance was declining (and low) leading up to surgery. Average absenteeism was relatively unmoved between baseline and each follow-up. Before surgery, the monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism was 19.8% and 18.9%, respectively; 12 months after surgery, these numbers were 9.7% and 16.0%; changes represent a mitigated loss of 13.0 percentage points of average monthly value.ConclusionsPresenteeism and absenteeism contributed roughly evenly to preoperative average monthly lost time. Although average changes in absenteeism and 6-week at-work performance were small, average changes in at-work performance at 6 and 12 months were significant. Cost-benefit analyses of lumbar spine surgery should therefore consider improved presenteeism, which appears to offset some of the direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment.

Project description:PurposeBrooke is a non-government organisation with working equine welfare programmes across Africa, Asia and Latin America. In 2014, staff from ten country programmes were asked to identify 'no-win' situations (subsequently reframed as 'hard-wins')-where improving equine welfare is proving difficult, expensive and/or marginal-in order to inform strategic decisions on how to approach, manage and mitigate for such situations.MethodsThe Delphi-type consultation process had three phases. Round 1 posed five questions in the form of a workshop, survey and semi-structured interviews. Round 2 re-presented key themes and sense-checked initial conclusions. Round 3 reviewed the nature and prevalence of hard-win situations at an international meeting of all participants.ResultsReasons given for hard-win situations included: no economic or social benefit from caring for working animals; poor resource availability; lack of empathy for working equids or their owners among wider stakeholders; deep-seated social issues, such as addiction or illegal working; areas with a high animal turnover or migratory human population; lack of community cooperation or cohesion; unsafe areas where welfare interventions cannot be adequately supported. Participants estimated the prevalence of hard-win situations as 40-70% of their work. They suggested some current ways of working that may be contributing to the problem, and opportunities to tackle hard-wins more effectively.Conclusion and animal welfare implicationsRespondents agreed that if equine welfare improvements are to span generations of animals, interventions cannot rely on relatively simple, technical knowledge-transfer strategies and quick-wins alone. Programmes need to be more flexible and iterative and less risk-averse in their approaches to embedding good equine welfare practices in all relevant actors. Consultation recommendations informed development of Brooke's new global strategy, a revised organisational structure and redefinition of roles and responsibilities to streamline ways to approach hard-wins in the complex environments and socio-economic contexts in which working equids are found.

Dataset Information

Who gains the most from improving working conditions? Health-related absenteeism and presenteeism due to stress at work.

Publications

Who gains the most from improving working conditions? Health-related absenteeism and presenteeism due to stress at work.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets