Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021 Aug;94(6):1385-1395. doi: 10.1007/s00420-021-01701-2. Epub 2021 Apr 29.
To compare the prevalence and reasons for presenteeism in occupations in three branches defined as employees handling people, handling things or handling symbols.
A cross-sectional population-based cohort study was conducted. The study group was drawn from a representative sample (n = 6230) aged 16-64, who had been interviewed in 2015 or in 2017 for the Swedish Work Environment Surveys (SWES). The odds ratios (ORs) stratified by occupational category for reasons of presenteeism, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using binomial multiple logistic regression analysis.
The study showed that presenteeism was more common among employees handling people (74%), when compared to employees handling things (65%) or handling symbols (70%). The most common reason for presenteeism among employees handling people was "I do not want to burden my colleagues", while "Because nobody else can carry out my responsibilities" was most common in the other two categories. After control for socio-demography, work environments and health, the differences in reasons mostly remained significant between the three occupational categories.
The differences between occupational categories are important for prevalence and reasons for presenteeism. As presenteeism affects the future health of employees and the productivity of the work unit, attempts to reduce presenteeism may be important. Because the reasons vary between occupations, customized preventive measures should be applied in different occupational settings. Among employees handling people, covering up for absence in work team is relevant, while among employees handling symbols and handling things the corresponding focus could be on shared responsibilities for specific tasks.
比较处理人、处理物和处理符号这三个职业分支中员工的缺勤现患率及其原因。
开展了一项横断面基于人群的队列研究。研究组来自具有代表性的样本（n=6230），年龄在 16-64 岁之间，他们在 2015 年或 2017 年参加了瑞典工作环境调查（SWES）的访谈。使用二项式多逻辑回归分析，按职业类别分层，估计了缺勤现患率的比值比（OR）及其 95%置信区间（CI）。
研究表明，与处理物（65%）或符号（70%）的员工相比，处理人的员工（74%）缺勤现患率更高。处理人中缺勤现患的最常见原因是“我不想给同事添麻烦”，而在其他两个类别中最常见的原因是“因为没有人能接替我的职责”。在控制了社会人口统计学、工作环境和健康因素后，这三个职业类别之间的原因差异大多仍然显著。
职业类别的差异对缺勤现患率和原因很重要。由于缺勤现患会影响员工未来的健康和工作单位的生产力，因此减少缺勤现患可能很重要。由于原因在不同职业中存在差异，应在不同职业环境中应用定制的预防措施。在处理人的员工中，掩盖工作团队中的缺勤很重要，而在处理符号和处理物的员工中，相应的重点可能是对特定任务的共同责任。
