Relationship Between Perceived Work Ability and Productivity Loss

• Autorzy: Vanni K. , Virtanen P. , Luukkaala T. , Nygard C. H.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper presents an approach to assessing presenteeism (on-the-job productivity loss) that is related to perceived work ability. The aim of this explorative research was to find out if perceived work ability could be a robust indicator, interchangeable with presenteeism, in Finnish food industry organizations. The developed approach was based on existing presenteeism research as well as on register and survey data. The approach demonstrates that one step downward on the 10-point perceived work ability scale theoretically reduces employees’ on-the-job productivity by ~5 percentage points. At the company level, on-the-job productivity loss was 3.7% (mdn 0), while sickness absence was 5.0% (mdn 2.2). The probability of productivity loss among factory workers was fourfold compared to women in office work. The developed approach makes it possible to assess perceived productivity loss at the level of an individual and an organization. Perceived work ability may, in fact, be a robust indicator for assessing perceived productivity loss.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

presenteeism; perceived productivity loss; perceived work ability

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 18, No. 3
• Strony: 299--309
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 47 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Vanni K.

• Tampere University of Applied Sciences, Tampere, Finland

autor

Virtanen P.

• Tampere School of Public Health, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

autor

Luukkaala T.

• Science Center, Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Finland
• Tampere School of Public Health, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

autor

Nygard C. H.

• Tampere School of Public Health, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

Bibliografia

• 1.Vingard E, Alexanderson K, Norlund A. Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Chapter 10. Sickness presence. Scand J Public Health Suppl. 2004;63:216–21.
• 2.Hansen CD, Andersen JH. Going ill to work—what personal circumstances, attitudes and work-related factors are associated with sickness presenteeism? Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(6):956–64.
• 3.Caverley N, Cunningham JB, MacGregor JN. Sickness presenteeism, sickness absenteeism, and health following restructuring in a public service organization. Journal of Management Studies. 2007;44(2):304–19.
• 4.Schultz A, Edington D. Employee health and presenteeism: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):547–79.
• 5.Ozminkowski R, Goetzel R, Chang S, Long S. The application of two health and productivity instruments at a large employer. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(7):635–48.
• 6.Burton WN, Conti DJ. The real measure of productivity. Bus Health. 1999;17(11):34–6.
• 7.Cooper CL, Cartwright S. Healthy mind, healthy organization—a proactive approach to occupational stress. Hum Relat. 1994;47(4):455–71.
• 8.Kendall E, Muenchberger H, O’Neill V. Measurement of occupational stress among Australian workers: perceived stressors and supports. Shenton Park, WA, Australia: WorkCover WA; 2003.
• 9.Lang S. Economists coin term, “presenteeism,” for on-the-job health slowdowns. Cornell Chronicle. 2004 Apr 22. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/4.22.04/presenteeism.html.
• 10.Aronsson G, Gustafsson K, Dallner M. Sick but yet at work: an empirical study of sickness presenteeism. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(7):502–9. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://jech.bmj.com/content/54/7/502.long.
• 11.Wahlqvist P, Reilly MC, Barkun A. Systematic review: the impact of gastrooesophageal reflux disease on work productivity. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24(2):259–272. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02996.x/pdf.
• 12.Lerner D, Reed JI, Massarotti E, Wester LM, Burke TA. The Work Limitations Questionnaire’s validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(2):197–208.
• 13.Boles M, Pelletier B, Lynch W. The relationship between health risks and work productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(7):737–45.
• 14.Burton WN, Chen CY, Conti DJ, Schultz AB, Edington DW. The association between health risk change and presenteeism change. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48(3):252–63.
• 15.Musich S, Hook D, Baaner S, Edington D. The association of two productivity measures with health risks and medical conditions in an Australian employee population. Am J Health Promot. 2006;20(5):353–63.
• 16.Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Scher AI. Epidemiology and economic impact of migraine. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17 Suppl 1:s4–12.
• 17.Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs before and after absence from work: as important as common? Health Policy. 2002;61(2):173–87.
• 18.Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;2(1):67–76.
• 19.van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, Michel BC, Rutten FF. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7(2):170–9.
• 20.Wang PS, Beck AL, Berglund P, McKenas DK, Pronk NP, Simon GE, et al. Effects of major depression on moment-intime work performance. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(10):1885–91. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?volume=161&page=1885.
• 21.Prasad M, Wahlqvist P, Shikiar R, Shih YC. A review of self-report instruments measuring health-related work productivity. A patient-reported outcomes perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(4):225–44.
• 22.Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry S. A review of methods to measure health-related productivity loss. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(4):211–7. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://www.ajmc.com/publications/issue/2007/2007-04-vol13-n4/Apr07-2472p211-217/.
• 23.Lofland J, Pizzi L, Frick K. A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(3):165–84.
• 24.Lerner D, Amick BC 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The Work Limitations Questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39(1):72–85.
• 25.Koopman C, Pelletier K, Murray J, Sharda CE, Berger ML, Turpin RS, et al. Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44(1):14–20.
• 26.Reilly M, Zbrozek A, Dukes E. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4(5):353–65.
• 27.Kessler R, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, et al. The world health organization health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(2):156–74.
• 28.Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ, Long SR. Development and reliability analysis of the Work Productivity Short Inventory (WPSI) instrument measuring employee health and productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(7):743–62.
• 29.Lerner D, Adler D, Chang H, Lapitsky L, Hood MY, Perissinotto C, et al. Unemployment, job retention, and productivity loss among employees with depression. Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55(12):1371–8. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?volume=55&page=1371.
• 30.Goetzel RZ, Long SR, Ozminkowski RJ, Hawkins K, Wang S, Lynch W. Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(4):398–412.
• 31.Ilmarinen J. Towards a longer worklife. Ageing and the quality of worklife in the European Union. Jyvaskyla, Finland: Gummerus; 2006:132–34.
• 32.Reiso H, Nygard JF, Brage S, Gulbrandsen P, Tellnes G. Work ability and duration of certified sickness absence. Scand J Public Health. 2001;29(3):218–25.
• 33.Nygard CH, Arola H, Siukola A, Savinainen M, Luukkaala T, Taskinen H, et al. Perceived work ability and certified sickness absence among workers in a food industry. In: Costa G, Goedhart WJA, Ilmarinen J, editors. Assessment and Promotion of Work Ability, Health and Well-being of Ageing Workers (International Congress Series). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2005. vol. 1280, p. 296–300.
• 34.Kujala V, Tammelin T, Remes J, Vammavaara E, Ek E, Laitinen J. Work ability index of young employees and their sickness absence during the following year. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(1):75–84. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=979.
• 35.Tuomi K, Huuhtanen P, Nykyri E, Ilmarinen J. Promotion of work ability, the quality of work and retirement. Occup Med (Lond). 2001;51(5):318–24. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/5/318.long.
• 36.Virtanen P, Siukola A, Luukkaala T, Savinainen M, Arola H, Nygard CH, et al. Sick leaves in four factories—do characteristics of employees and work conditions explain differences in sickness absence between workplaces? Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008;34(4):260–6. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=1225.
• 37.Gould R, Ilmarinen J, Jarvisalo J, Koskinen S, editors. Dimensions of work ability. Results of the Health 2000 Survey. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Centre for Pensions (ETK), The Social Insurance Institution (Kela), National Public Health Institute (KTL), Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2008. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/78055/dimensions_of_work_ability_7.pdf.
• 38.Ilmarinen J, Tuomi K. Past, present and future of work ability. In: Ilmarinen J, Lehtinen S, editors. Past, present and future of work ability (People and Work, Research Reports 65). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2004. p. 1–25.
• 39.Sink DS. Productivity management: planning, measurement and evaluation, control and improvement. New York, NY, USA: Wiley; 1985.
• 40.Brady W, Bass J, Moser R Jr, Anstadt G, Loeppke R, Leopold R. Defining total corporate health and safety costs – significance and impact. Review and recommendations. J Occup Environ Med. 1997;39(3):224–31.
• 41.Savinainen M, Nygard CH, Arola H. An 11-year follow-up of physical capacity among women between 44 to 62 years of age in the food industry. In: Nygard CH, Luopajarvi T, Lusa S, Leppanen M, editors. Promotion of Health Through Ergonomic Working and Living Conditions. Outcomes and Methods of Research and Practice. 33rd Annual Congress of the Nordic Ergonomics Society. Tampere, Finland: School of Public Health, University of Tampere; 2011. p. 418–21.
• 42.Lipscomb HJ, Epling CA, Pompeii LA, Dement JM. Musculoskeletal symptoms among poultry processing workers and a community comparison group: black women in low-wage jobs in the rural South. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50(5):327–38.
• 43.Rintamaki H, Korhonen E, Rissanen S, Oksa J, Pienimaki T. Cold problems and upper limb muscular strain in food processing industry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Australian Physiological and Pharmacological Society. 2001. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from: http://www.aups.org.au/Proceedings/32(2)Suppl.1/127P/127P.html.
• 44.Aasmoe L, Bang B, Egeness C, Lochen ML. Musculoskeletal symptoms among seafood production workers in North Norway. Occup Med (Lond). 2008;58(1):64–70.
• 45.Norman K, Nilsson T, Hagberg M, Tornqvist EW, Toomingas A. Working conditions and health among female and male employees at a call center in Sweden. Am J Ind Med. 2004;46(1):55–62.
• 46.Sprigg CA, Stride CB, Wall TD, Holman DJ, Smith PR. Work characteristics, musculoskeletal disorders, and the mediating role of psychological strain: a study of call center employees. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(5):1456–66.
• 47.Costa G, Sartori S. Ageing, working hours and work ability. Ergonomics. 2007;50(11):1914–30.