Previous sickness presence among long‐term sick‐listed in Norway and Sweden: A retrospective study of prevalence and self‐reported reasons

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to analyse previous sickness presence among long‐term sick‐listed individuals in Norway and Sweden and the reasons given for sickness presence. The study was based on survey data for 3,312 persons in Norway and Sweden who had been sick‐listed for at least 30 days. Two questions were used. One measured prevalence: During the last 12 months prior to your current sick leave, did you go to work even when feeling so ill that you should have taken sick leave? The second question concerned reasons for sickness presence. Large differences were found between Norway and Sweden in the prevalence of sickness presence. More long‐term sick‐listed Norwegians than Swedes reported sickness presence [adjusted odds ratio (OR) for Sweden 0.65 (0.53–0.80)]. The Swedes more often reported financial reasons for sickness presence [adjusted OR 2.77 (2.1 to −3.54)], while the Norwegians more often gave positive reasons related to work. The national differences may be related to differences in sickness insurance strategies.

A panel study of sickness presence and sickness absence among secondary school students

“…The present study has many strengths, such as a good representation of students from different types of tion. The association between school motivation and high sickness presence was also reported in the previous Norwegian study in secondary school [17], whilst work satisfaction and work enjoyment were often reported reasons for sickness presence among adults [3,[14][15][16]. schools, a large sample and a high response rate.…”

“…Other studies have shown that employees who are often sickness absent also tend to be sickness present, and that high sickness presence can lead to poor health and future high sickness absence [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Moreover, it has been proposed that organizational/work-related factors and personal factors influence the choice between absence and presence when ill [1,15,16]. Personal factors found to influence sickness presence include self-rated health, educational level, gender, age, economic situation, social support, state of work-life balance, and latitude in decision making.…”

“…A remit assessment of the project determined that this panel study was not covered by Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics, but it was necessary to get an approval from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data. The panel study was clarified with the educational ministries in 5 countries security, work burden, working-time arrangements, workplace culture, job satisfaction, control over work tasks, and the potential for adjusting work demands [1][2][3][4][5][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. This article expands the body of research on sickness presence to include secondary school students.…”

Sickness presenteeism: Are we sure about what we are studying? A research based on a literature review and an empirical illustration

“…Nor is there a perfect consensus with respect to the population in which to estimate SP or, to put it another way, the denominator that should be used when estimating frequency measures. There are studies in which the population considered is all workers and others, noting that to be presenteeist the worker first must meet the condition of being “sick,” exclude “healthy” workers (considered “not at risk”) …”

“…Indeed, among the studies published under the approach of attending work while ill, there are differences in relation to how presenteeism is operationalized, measured, and analyzed. Even the term used to designate it can vary; while the term “presenteeism” has mainly been used for the approach focusing on the study of productivity loss, the term “sickness presenteeism” (SP) appears to have been coined by researchers interested in the “act of presenteeism” and its health‐related consequences, although other terms such as “sickness attendance,” “sickness presence,” or “the absence of sickness absenteeism” have also appeared. The essential point is that, in this case, phenomena which are not identical are being grouped under the same umbrella, and hence interpreted in the same way, or have the same causes or consequences.…”