Keramat Syed Afroz, Comans Tracy, Pearce Alison, Basri Rabeya, Hashmi Rubayyat, Dissanayaka Nadeeka N
Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia.
The Daffodil Centre, and Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Eur J Health Econ. 2025 Apr 30. doi: 10.1007/s10198-025-01764-9.
By 2030, it is anticipated that poor mental health will cost the global economy approximately $6 trillion per year, primarily due to productivity loss. It is crucial to understand how psychological distress contributes to productivity loss in the workplace. We aim to investigate the relationship between psychological distress and productivity loss in the Australian working population. We utilized eight waves of longitudinal data drawn from the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey (waves 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 21). We compiled an unbalanced panel data set comprising 70,973 person-year observations from 18,729 unique working adults. We used Fixed-effects Poisson regression and Fixed-effects logistic regression models to investigate the within-person differences in the relationship between psychological distress and productivity loss (measured through sickness absence, presenteeism, and underemployment). We found that moderate and high psychological distress is associated with a higher rate of sickness absence, presenteeism, and underemployment when a working adult shifted from low psychological distress after controlling socio-demographic, health, and employment-related characteristics. Our study demonstrated that moderate to high psychological distress adversely affected employees' job productivity through increased sickness absence, a higher likelihood of presenteeism, and greater levels of underemployment. Our findings also revealed that employees with moderate and high psychological distress incurred additional annual sickness absence costs of AUD 60.66 and AUD 99.26, respectively, compared to peers with low psychological distress. Additionally, our study found that employees with moderate and high levels of psychological distress experienced significantly higher levels of presenteeism, which resulted in additional annual costs of AUD 1,166.30 and AUD 3,656.05, respectively, compared to their counterparts with low psychological distress. Psychological distress imposed significant costs on Australian workplaces. Implementing workplace health promotion programs should be prioritized as a policy to address psychological distress among employees, enhance their well-being, and improve overall productivity.
到2030年,预计心理健康不佳将使全球经济每年损失约6万亿美元,主要原因是生产力损失。了解心理困扰如何导致工作场所的生产力损失至关重要。我们旨在调查澳大利亚劳动人口中心理困扰与生产力损失之间的关系。我们利用了从澳大利亚家庭、收入和劳动力动态调查(HILDA调查)(第7、9、11、13、15、17、19和21轮)中提取的八轮纵向数据。我们编制了一个不平衡面板数据集,包括来自18729名独特在职成年人的70973人年观察数据。我们使用固定效应泊松回归和固定效应逻辑回归模型来研究心理困扰与生产力损失(通过病假、出勤主义和就业不足来衡量)之间关系的个体内部差异。我们发现,在控制了社会人口统计学、健康和就业相关特征后,当在职成年人从低心理困扰转变为中度和高度心理困扰时,与更高的病假率、出勤主义和就业不足率相关。我们的研究表明,中度至高度心理困扰通过增加病假、更高的出勤主义可能性和更高的就业不足水平对员工的工作生产力产生了不利影响。我们的研究结果还显示,与低心理困扰的同龄人相比,中度和高度心理困扰的员工每年分别产生额外的病假成本60.66澳元和99.26澳元。此外,我们的研究发现,中度和高度心理困扰的员工经历的出勤主义水平明显更高,与低心理困扰的同行相比,分别导致每年额外成本1166.30澳元和3656.05澳元。心理困扰给澳大利亚的工作场所带来了巨大成本。应优先实施工作场所健康促进计划,作为一项政策来解决员工的心理困扰,提高他们的幸福感,并提高整体生产力。