Hubbry Logo
PresenteeismPresenteeismMain
Open search
Presenteeism
Community hub
Presenteeism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Presenteeism
Presenteeism
Presenteeism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Presenteeism or working while sick is the act or culture of employees continuing to work as a performative measure, despite having reduced productivity levels or negative consequences. Reduced productivity during presenteeism is often due to illness, injury, exhaustion, or other conditions, but presenteeism can also describe working while contagiously sick, which has the added risk of creating a workplace epidemic.

Many different motives can lead to presenteeism.[1] An employee may come to work because they simply need the money and cannot afford to take time off due to illness. Doctors may attend work while sick due to feelings of being irreplaceable. Additionally, one could go to work due to a love and devotion to the job; in this case, it could be considered an act of organizational citizenship and inspire admiration from colleagues.[1] Other reasons include feeling that career prospects may be damaged if they take time off, and an expectation of presence driven from management.

Presenteeism is ingrained in the culture of certain industries and regions of the world. In Singapore and other South Asian and South East Asian countries, it is a common practice for employees to stay in the office even after their work is done, waiting until their boss leaves.[2] Jobs with large workloads are often associated with presenteeism. Workaholics and people who base their self-esteem on performance typically exhibit higher levels of presenteeism.

While the contrasting subject of absenteeism has historically received extensive attention in the management sciences, presenteeism has only been studied recently.[1]

Construct validity

[edit]
See also: Construct validity

Scholars have provided various descriptions of the concept. For instance, Simpson claimed that presenteeism is "the tendency to stay at work beyond the time needed for effective performance on the job."[3] Aronsson, Gustafsson, and Dallner wrote that it means attending work even when one feels unhealthy.[4] In a recent review of the literature, Johns highlighted the lack of agreement between the many definitions.[1] The author claimed that many of the definitions lack utility and that the term is most often defined as going to work while ill. He further noted that definitions of presenteeism, which are centered on attending work while sick, have received more evidence of construct validity. In other words, when defined as coming to work while sick, presenteeism seems to relate more to logical outcome variables and correlates.[1]

Simply viewing presenteeism as a negative act that leads to productivity loss and decreased health may be restricting potential analysis of the construct.[1]

Relationship with absenteeism

[edit]

In some cases, scholars relate presenteeism to absenteeism, which is the tendency not to show up for scheduled work.[1] Furthermore, Johns described the notion that some believe that factors that reduce absenteeism will increase presenteeism.[1] He stated, however, that this is plausible but not always the case because he pointed out that Aronsson et al. found high rates of presenteeism in industries where absenteeism was also high.[4]

Additionally, research that examines absenteeism is at times used to draw conclusions about presenteeism. For example, Virtanen, Kivimaki, Elovainio, Vahtera, and Ferrie found that employees exhibited much higher rates of absenteeism once they became permanent workers.[5] The authors thought that this increase could have been due to decreases in the preexisting levels of presenteeism. However, they did not directly measure presenteeism. Commenting on such research behavior, Johns said in his review of the literature that researchers should not infer presenteeism from absenteeism data. Instead, the author noted that both constructs should be measured at the same time.[1]

Antecedents

[edit]

Temporary and permanent employment

[edit]

Temporary and permanent employment are often considered when examining the antecedents of presenteeism. More specifically, researchers have studied these positions with the thought that lack of job security will cause those who do not have permanent positions to come to work more often even if they are sick.[1] This hypothesis, however, has not received complete support. Aronsson et al. discovered that permanent employees were more prone to presenteeism than those in more seasonal positions.[4] In contrast, Aronsson and Gustafson found no effect of job type.[6] Furthermore, Heponiemi et al. found that fixed-term employees as opposed to permanent employees were less likely to report working while ill, and the work of Bockerman and Laukkanen supported this finding.[7][8] Based on these inconclusive results, Johns called for researchers to reconsider the job insecurity hypothesis.[1]

Occupations and work environments

[edit]

Individuals working in certain occupations may be more prone to presenteeism. In a study in Sweden, Aronsson et al. found higher rates of presenteeism in organizations whose function is to provide welfare and teaching services.[4] The authors pointed out that these employees often worked with clients in more vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. Outside of education and healthcare, most studied occupations had lower rates of presenteeism; however, the results did suggest that higher-risk jobs, which had more physical workload and stress, saw increased levels of presenteeism.

Certain work environments may stimulate presenteeism. To explore this topic, Dew, Keefe, and Small qualitatively examined a private hospital, a large public hospital, and a small factory.[9] In the private hospital, there was little pressure from management to exhibit presenteeism; however, a sense of family seemed to exist between the staff, and a strong loyalty to coworkers pushed employees to come to work while unhealthy. The public hospital had a distant management, but presenteeism was fostered by "loyalty to professional image, colleagues, and the institution as a whole."[9] Finally, in the factory, there was strong pressure from management for employees to exhibit presenteeism. Furthermore, workers often had few other employment options, which often resulted in increased presenteeism.

Ease of replacement

[edit]

The ease with which one can be replaced on the job also affects levels of presenteeism. Specifically, if one feels that they cannot be replaced, that individual is more prone to attend work while sick.[6][8] Doctors are often examined in this regard. For example, Jena et al. studied residents in training and noted high rates of presenteeism, which they concluded were the result of feeling irreplaceable.[10] Further extending the examination of the medical field, McKevitt, Morgan, Dundas, and Holland studied hundreds of healthcare professionals and found that more than 80 percent of respondents had worked while ill. Individuals listed some of the reasons they had not taken sick days, and many cited the fact that they felt large pressure to work.[11] In some cases, general practitioners did not want to burden their partners, and many felt a strong commitment to the job that prevented them from taking sick leave.

Workloads and job demands

[edit]

Jobs that have large workloads and many demands are often associated with higher levels of presenteeism. Caverely, Cunningham, and Macgregor studied Canadian firms and noted that presenteeism was often not the result of job insecurity.[12] Instead individuals felt they had to come to work while ill or injured because they believed they had high workloads, many deadlines, and often very little backup support. Complementing this finding, McKevitt et al. also found that individuals feared their work would pile up if they did not go to their job.[11] Moreover, Demerouti, Le Blanc, Bakker, Schaufeli, and Hox examined job demands and found that they had a positive relationship with presenteeism.[13] In the case of this study, the authors defined job demands as aspects of the job that require physical and/or psychological effort.

Forced overtime, heavy workloads, and frenetic work paces give rise to debilitating repetitive stress injuries, on-the-job accidents, over-exposure to toxic substances, and other dangerous work conditions.[14] Some studies are beginning to show the costs of compulsory overwork. Reg Williams and Patricia Strasser, professors of nursing at the University of Michigan, estimated in the journal of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses that the total cost of depression at work was as high as $44 billion. They pointed out that healthcare workers have focused much attention on the workplace risk factors for heart disease, cancer, obesity, and other illnesses, but little emphasis on the risk factors for depression, stress, negative changes in personal life, and difficulties in interpersonal relationships.[15]

Workaholism

[edit]

Those who exhibit workaholism tend to demonstrate higher levels of presenteeism. As defined by Schaufeli, Bakker, van der Heijden, and Prins, workaholics tend to work excessively and compulsively, and they are internally motivated to work to an excessive extent.[16] In addition to their high levels of presenteeism, Schaufeli et al. discovered that workaholics also displayed the highest burnout and lowest happiness levels relative to other groups who were not defined as workaholics.[16]

Performance-based self-esteem

[edit]

Performance-based self-esteem (PBSE) has also been considered another antecedent of presenteeism. This term describes the idea that individuals' self-esteem may depend on their performance.[17] Employees who demonstrate high levels of this construct have to prove their worth while on the job. Love et al. found that PBSE positively predicted presenteeism; however, the authors also discovered that the relationship between PBSE and presenteeism was strengthened when workers experienced high physical and psychological work demands.[17] This finding suggested that demanding work environments could interact with employees' overambitious work styles, which could result in over-performance and increased levels of presenteeism.[17]

Health factors

[edit]

Certain health factors serve as risk factors for presenteeism as opposed to absenteeism. Boles, Pelletier, and Lynch examined a variety of emotional and physical health symptoms and noted that the odds of reporting presenteeism were largest for those with high stress compared to those without stress.[18] Those with poor diet and less emotional fulfillment also reported higher levels of presenteeism than those without these conditions. The researchers noted that individuals with diabetes tended to report higher levels of absenteeism as opposed to those without the condition. Individuals who partook in no physical activity were more prone to report higher levels of both absenteeism and presenteeism compared to those who took part in some physical activity.

Consequences

[edit]

Productivity loss

[edit]

One consequence of presenteeism is productivity loss, and scholars have attempted to estimate these productivity numbers. While examining productivity decrements, however, it is implied that losses are measured relative to not having a particular sickness or health issue.[1] Furthermore, in comparison to being absent from a job, those exhibiting presenteeism may be far more productive. Nonetheless, a large study by Goetzel et al. estimated that on average in the United States, an employee's presenteeism costs or lost on-the-job productivity are approximately $255.[19] Furthermore, the authors concluded that of all the health related costs faced by employers, one fifth to three fifths of those expenses could be attributable to on-the-job productivity losses. Complementing that study, Schultz and Edington provided a detailed review of the effects of certain health conditions on productivity.[20] These authors examined conditions such as allergies, arthritis, chronic pain, diabetes, and mental health disorders. The studies in the review showed, for example, that increases in pollen (a common allergen) are associated with decreased performance.[21] Moreover, Schultz and Edington noted that chronic pain had to be studied more thoroughly to better understand its effects on productivity.[20]

Poor health and exhaustion

[edit]

Exhaustion and future poor health are often other consequences of presenteeism. For example, Bergstrom, Bodin, Hagberg, Aronsson, and Josephson found that sickness presenteeism was a risk factor for future sick leave.[22] Furthermore, in their study of job demands and presenteeism, Demerouti et al. found that presenteeism resulted in increased exhaustion.[13]

Presenteeism can also have an effect on occupational injuries for workers. A 2012 study from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health showed that workers with access to paid sick leave were 28% less likely overall to sustain nonfatal injuries than workers without access to paid sick leave.[23]

Workplace epidemics

[edit]

In the case of an infectious disease such as influenza, a culture of presenteeism will inevitably also lead to further infections throughout the workforce, compounding the ill-effects and leading to a much wider problem. In a 2014 survey by Canada Life Insurance, over 80% of respondents stated that they had become ill as a result of an infection contracted in the workplace.[24]

Measurement and impact on productivity

[edit]

Scholars have often measured presenteeism in terms of how often an individual attends work while unhealthy. For instance, Aronsson et al. asked participants to what extent over the past year they had gone to work despite feeling they should have taken sick leave.[4] Respondents could choose from never, once, between two and 5 times, and more than 5 times. Other researchers have examined the frequency of presenteeism by asking participants a similar question. The responses, however, were on a scale of "spells of one day presenteeism, spells of 2-4 day presenteeism, and spells of 5 day or more presenteeism."[25]

Aside from measuring the frequency of presenteeism, scholars often look to measure the effects of poor health on job productivity. The Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) is often used to perform this task.[26] With 25 items, it examines the extent to which respondents can handle time, physical, mental-interpersonal, and output demands. Additionally, the Stanford Presenteeism Scale seeks to determine the effects of health on productivity. It measures participants' abilities to concentrate and perform work despite having a primary health problem.[27] Using six items, respondents determine the extent to which they agree with statements that describe how their health condition may or may not affect their work. The scale measures two factors that the authors labeled as completing work and avoiding distraction. Finally, another measure often used is the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ).[28] This self-report measure acquires information about respondents' health conditions and has them provide perceptions of their job performance. The WLQ and HPQ have become the two most popular instruments;[20] however, there are other measures that have been created to estimate the effects of health on productivity.[29]

Implications for practice

[edit]
See also: Workplace health promotion

Given the prominence and costs of presenteeism, scholars have suggested a variety of courses of action for employers. Companies should implement wellness programs for their employees aimed at increasing health and productivity. These organizations, however, must be aware that the effects of these programs may have an immediate impact on presenteeism as opposed to simply absenteeism. Firms must be cognizant of this fact when evaluating the effectiveness of their programs.[12] Complementing this suggestion, Schultz and Edington wrote that employees must receive effective health education so they can better manage their health.[20] They also commented that employers need to consider the health of workers who are low risk along with those who have high-risk health conditions. In the United States, one other proposed response has been to require that paid sick and family leave be provided to all workers. In November 2006, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction to pass such a law.[30]

Future directions and research

[edit]

While progress has been made in regards to understanding presenteeism, many possible topics of inquiry still remain. In his literature review, Johns said that presenteeism had to be related to other constructs such as work attitudes and personality.[1] Additionally, lessons from absenteeism could be applied to presenteeism. For instance, absenteeism can be defined as voluntary and involuntary, and scholars could consider applying such ideas to presenteeism. Lastly, the construct could be related to other elements of the workplace. Specifically, how does presenteeism relate to remote work? Is an individual who works from home while he or she is sick exhibiting presenteeism?

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Presenteeism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Presenteeism refers to the of employees at work despite physical or impairments that diminish their on-the-job , often resulting in hidden economic costs greater than those associated with . This concept, distinct from mere physical presence, encompasses reduced output due to factors such as illness, , or stress, with empirical studies indicating it affects a broad range of professions, particularly in high-pressure sectors like healthcare and . Prevalence data from occupational reveal presenteeism as a widespread issue, with surveys showing it occurs more frequently than and correlates strongly with performance deficits, especially in environments lacking flexible policies. Its economic toll is substantial; for instance, productivity losses have been estimated at over $150 billion annually, while in , mental health-related presenteeism alone equates to about 1.1% of GDP. Causally, it stems from structural incentives like job insecurity, inadequate , and workload pressures that discourage absence, though individual vulnerabilities amplify its occurrence. Measurement relies on validated tools such as the Stanford Presenteeism Scale, which assesses impairment levels, enabling quantification of losses through self-reported or observed productivity metrics; however, challenges persist in distinguishing transient from chronic effects. Consequences extend beyond output declines to exacerbate employee burnout, prolong health issues, and heighten error risks, particularly in safety-critical roles, underscoring the need for interventions prioritizing causal factors over superficial attendance incentives. While some frameworks view it neutrally as a behavioral response to organizational demands, dominant links it to net negative outcomes for both workers and employers.

Definition and Conceptual Framework

Core Definition and Scope

Presenteeism denotes the attendance of employees at their workplace despite conditions—physical, mental, or otherwise—that impair their on-the-job and . This concept contrasts with , where individuals are entirely absent from work due to similar impairments, and emphasizes the hidden costs of reduced output while physically present. Scholarly definitions predominantly frame it as lost attributable to problems, with approximately 70% of studies aligning with this productivity-centric view originating from U.S. research traditions. The scope of presenteeism includes a broad array of impairments, ranging from acute illnesses like colds or injuries to chronic conditions such as musculoskeletal disorders, issues including depression and anxiety, and even non-clinical factors like or side effects that diminish cognitive or physical capacity. It manifests as behaviors including prolonged task completion, errors, diminished focus, or suboptimal decision-making, often without overt signs to supervisors. While primarily studied in occupational health contexts, its boundaries extend to evaluate not only immediate performance deficits but also downstream effects like error propagation in safety-critical roles or of personal health decline. Measurement of presenteeism falls within occupational and domains, typically assessed via self-reported scales capturing perceived loss (e.g., percentage of work capacity impaired) or behavioral indicators of impaired functioning, though challenges persist in due to subjective elements and contextual variability across sectors. estimates vary by occupation, with rates from 17% to 65% reported across sectors like healthcare and , underscoring its widespread relevance beyond white-collar environments. Emerging frameworks view it as a potentially neutral attendance behavior influenced by both positive (e.g., ethic) and negative (e.g., job insecurity) drivers, rather than inherently pathological, broadening its theoretical scope to include motivational antecedents.

Construct Validity and Theoretical Foundations

Construct validity of presenteeism as a psychological and occupational construct has been established through the development and psychometric testing of multiple self-report instruments, which demonstrate with measures of status, work limitations, and productivity losses. For instance, the single-item presenteeism question (SPQ) has shown evidence of by correlating with external and economic outcomes in longitudinal studies among workers with chronic conditions. Similarly, comparative analyses of instruments like the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire and others reveal moderate to strong associations with disease-specific activity indices and rates, supporting their ability to capture reduced at-work performance due to impairments. A of 27 instruments found that 21 provided evidence for , primarily via correlations with related constructs such as general and functional limitations, though criterion validity remains limited across most tools. Discriminant validity is evidenced by presenteeism measures distinguishing impaired attendance from mere physical presence or full absenteeism, with factor analyses in nursing-specific scales confirming unique dimensions like behavioral attendance despite cognitive or physical deficits. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in validation studies, such as those for the Nurse Presenteeism Questionnaire, yield reliable factor structures (e.g., eigenvalues >1, loadings >0.40), underscoring the construct's multidimensional nature encompassing health-related productivity decrements rather than a unidimensional attendance metric. However, challenges persist, including variability in responsiveness to change over time and potential overlap with broader work impairment scales, necessitating context-specific adaptations for high-reliability applications in occupational settings. Theoretically, presenteeism is grounded in occupational health models emphasizing the interplay between individual health states and workplace performance, extending from early conceptualizations of productivity losses attributable to suboptimal functioning rather than absence. Key foundations include economic theories positing presenteeism as a rational arising from asymmetric disutilities of work attendance versus absence, influenced by factors like wage replacement policies and health capital depreciation, as modeled in analyses of German labor data where skilled workers exhibit higher presenteeism due to tenure and substitutability costs. Behavioral explanations draw on the (TPB), framing presenteeism as intention-driven outcomes of attitudes toward attendance norms, subjective pressures from supervisors, and perceived behavioral control over illness management, with empirical support from healthcare worker studies showing TPB predictors explaining up to 40% of variance in sick-day decisions. Additional theoretical underpinnings incorporate resource conservation frameworks, where attending work while impaired accelerates (e.g., , cognitive capacity), leading to sustained deficits and incomplete recovery, as differentiated from positive presenteeism scenarios involving minor ailments with motivational offsets. The health-performance framework further posits bidirectional causal links, with chronic conditions predicting presenteeism profiles that, in turn, exacerbate health via stress amplification, validated through cluster analyses identifying high-risk subgroups based on mental-physical patterns. These models collectively reject simplistic views of presenteeism as mere , instead causal-realistically attributing it to antecedent pressures like job insecurity and organizational cultures that prioritize visibility over recovery, informing interventions targeted at modifiable drivers.

Historical Context

Origins and Early Conceptualization

The term presenteeism was coined in 1996 by , a of organizational at the , to describe the tendency of employees to attend work despite illness or exhaustion that would otherwise warrant absence. Cooper's initial framing positioned presenteeism as a behavioral response to job insecurity, where workers extended their presence at the out of fear of repercussions for taking time off, rather than as a measure of reduced . This conceptualization emerged amid economic shifts in the UK, including rising concerns and a cultural emphasis on loyalty through attendance in post-recession organizational environments. Early theoretical foundations drew from research, inverting it to highlight "over-attendance" as a maladaptive strategy influenced by factors like managerial and competitive labor markets. Cooper explicitly defined presenteeism as "being at work when you should be at home either because you are ill or because you are exhausted," underscoring its roots in impairment compounded by motivational drivers such as perceived job . Unlike later productivity-focused interpretations, this origin emphasized over output losses, viewing it as a symptom of strained employee-employer dynamics in knowledge-based economies. Although the specific term debuted in , precursor discussions of impaired work due to appeared in and business literature as early as the , often under broader critiques that noted hidden costs of forced presence. Cooper's work built on these by formalizing presenteeism as a distinct construct, prompting initial empirical inquiries into its prevalence, such as surveys linking it to stress and in firms during the late . This early phase prioritized qualitative insights from over quantitative cost models, establishing presenteeism as a cautionary indicator of unsustainable work practices rather than an inevitable norm.

Evolution in Academic and Organizational Research

Research on presenteeism transitioned from sporadic discussions in occupational health literature during the and to systematic academic inquiry in the early , driven by recognition of its implications beyond . Initial empirical studies emphasized quantification of health-related losses, with early estimates suggesting presenteeism accounted for substantial organizational costs, often rivaling or surpassing those of absence. For example, analyses in the late and early linked chronic conditions like allergies and to daily performance decrements of 20-30% in affected workers. This period saw the introduction of dedicated measurement tools, such as the Stanford Presenteeism Scale in 2002, which operationalized the construct through self-reported items on cognitive and physical interference from health issues, enabling broader empirical validation. By the mid-2000s, academic research diversified into theoretical frameworks and antecedents, integrating presenteeism into and paradigms. Gary ' 2010 review synthesized over two decades of findings, identifying key correlates including acute illness, psychosocial stressors, and incentive structures that discourage absence, while critiquing overly simplistic cost-focused models and calling for multilevel analyses. Concurrently, organizational studies began exploring contextual drivers, such as attendance cultures in high-pressure sectors like healthcare and , where expectations amplified the . Meta-analytic efforts, such as those examining sickness presenteeism frequencies across professions, reported prevalence rates of 30-50% in episodes of illness, underscoring its ubiquity and prompting causal models linking it to job insecurity and norms. In organizational applications, research evolved toward intervention-oriented approaches by the , with firms adopting wellness programs and flexible policies to mitigate presenteeism's downstream effects on errors and burnout. Bibliometric reviews document exponential growth, from fewer than 50 publications annually pre-2005 to over 200 by the late , reflecting integration with agendas and post-recession emphases on . Recent , including dual-path models distinguishing -driven from motivation-driven presenteeism, highlights adaptive potentials in low-stakes scenarios but warns of long-term erosion, informing evidence-based HR strategies like reduced face-time mandates. This progression underscores a shift from descriptive to predictive, policy-relevant frameworks, though gaps persist in longitudinal data and non-Western contexts.

Relationship to Absenteeism

Key Distinctions and Overlaps

Presenteeism and both arise from health-related impairments but differ fundamentally in manifestation and immediate organizational effects. involves full withdrawal from the workplace due to illness, yielding no output during absence and often allowing for potential recovery, though it incurs costs from disruptions and replacement needs. Presenteeism, conversely, entails physical despite such impairments, resulting in reduced —typically 33-50% lower —while exposing the individual to risks of exacerbated issues without the recuperative benefits of rest. These distinctions highlight as a binary absence-present with total output loss, versus presenteeism's partial impairment amid full payroll costs. Overlaps emerge in their shared and behavioral fluidity among affected workers. Both are frequently triggered by comparable factors, such as chronic conditions, stress, and inadequate , with empirical analyses identifying common predictors like general physical decline and job insecurity. Individuals often alternate between the two, as evidenced by longitudinal showing the same employees exhibiting high presenteeism (over 8 days annually) alongside moderate (1-7 days), rather than mutually exclusive patterns. between them follows expectancy-based models, where workers weigh valences like penalties against outcomes, influenced by organizational norms and social pressures that may favor attendance over absence. In sectors like , individual-level positive correlations persist, though unit-level norms can suppress presenteeism through contextual moderation. Presenteeism generally proves more prevalent, impacting 40% of European workers versus 22-28% for , underscoring their interconnected yet non-oppositional nature.

Empirical Comparisons of Prevalence and Costs

Empirical studies consistently show presenteeism to be more prevalent than across diverse workforces, though rates vary by industry, , and measurement method. In a 2025 analysis of Japanese workers with conditions, presenteeism prevalence was 25.2 times higher than . Among general paid workers in a Korean study, presenteeism affected 9.4% of respondents compared to 3.7% for . In populations, a of 28 studies estimated presenteeism at 49.2%. These figures reflect self-reported data, which may understate true incidence due to or social desirability effects, but underscore presenteeism's broader reach, as workers often attend despite impairments rather than absenting entirely. Economic costs of presenteeism exceed those of in most assessments, driven by reduced on-site over full workdays. A 2018 U.S. study of health-related productivity losses found annual per-person costs of $3,055 for presenteeism versus $520 for , with presenteeism comprising 64% of total indirect costs. In , mental health-related presenteeism generated $46.73 billion in losses annually, dwarfing 's $1.85 billion—equivalent to 1.1% of GDP. For conditions like psychological distress, presenteeism costs reached $6,944–$8,432 per person yearly, compared to $2,337–$2,796 for . Presenteeism's higher burden stems from its frequency and the "hidden" nature of output decrements, often estimated via validated scales like the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, though these rely on subjective impairment ratings that may inflate losses if not calibrated against objective performance metrics.
Study PopulationPresenteeism Cost (per person/year)Absenteeism Cost (per person/year)Source
U.S. general (health-related)$3,055$520
Japanese workers (mental health)Part of $46.73B national totalPart of $1.85B national total
Workers with psychological distress$6,944 (women)–$8,432 (men)$2,337 (women)–$2,796 (men)
Cross-condition analyses reinforce this disparity; for chronic illnesses like , presenteeism costs were two to four times costs. Overall, presenteeism represents 18–60% of total health-related economic burdens in many datasets, exceeding direct medical expenses and highlighting its underappreciated fiscal impact relative to overt absences. These comparisons, drawn from longitudinal and cross-sectional surveys, emphasize the need for employer interventions targeting at-work impairments, as cost models assuming full replacement wages for but partial losses for presenteeism yield more accurate valuations.

Causes and Antecedents

Individual-Level Factors

Individual health conditions, particularly chronic physical ailments such as migraines, back pain, arthritis, allergies, asthma, and respiratory issues, significantly contribute to presenteeism by impairing cognitive and physical performance while motivating attendance due to perceived mildness or fear of symptom worsening from absence. Mental health factors, including stress, anxiety, depression, and poor sleep quality, drive presenteeism through reduced resilience and heightened psychological distress, with empirical data showing these as leading personal predictors in samples of healthcare workers and general employees. Demographic characteristics influence presenteeism propensity; younger workers exhibit higher rates, potentially due to lower accumulated or regarding health impacts, while married individuals and those with shorter job tenure report elevated behaviors linked to financial dependencies or perceived job insecurity. Childcare responsibilities further exacerbate despite illness, as parents prioritize income stability over recovery. Attitudinal and perceptual factors at the level, such as self-perceived irreplaceability, strong organizational identification, and reluctance to claim absence for minor symptoms, promote presenteeism by overriding rationales, with studies indicating these traits correlate positively with attendance behaviors in cross-sectional employee surveys. Personal financial pressures, including inability to afford unpaid leave, amplify this effect, particularly among lower-income workers facing immediate economic trade-offs. Negative perceptions and low personal resources, like or , independently predict higher presenteeism , underscoring the role of subjective appraisals in . Organizational cultures that normalize attendance despite illness, often through implicit expectations or "presenteeism ," drive employees to work while impaired by conveying that absence is discouraged or penalized. This , conceptualized as the of organizational norms favoring presence over , has been operationalized via an 11-item scale validated across multiple samples totaling over 1,600 participants, showing strong links to actual sickness presenteeism behaviors. Such cultures manifest in stigmatization of , unhealthy interpersonal dynamics like over absences, and broader values prioritizing over , as identified in bibliometric analyses of over 11,000 citations on the topic. Job insecurity emerges as a core job-related antecedent, where fears of job loss or compel to demonstrate reliability amid economic or contractual . Empirical reviews link this to heightened presenteeism, particularly in high-demand sectors, with data from 2023 indicating a tripling of rates over the prior decade tied to insecurity perceptions. Employees often cite irreplaceability or reluctance to burden colleagues as rationales, reinforced by low decision or ease of replacement in roles with limited . Intense and job demands further propel presenteeism by creating urgency that overrides recovery needs, such as urgent tasks or shortages leading to multiple responsibilities. In a of 1,521 Swiss employees across sectors, high ranked among the highest-rated triggers (mean score of 3.2 on a 5-point frequency scale over 12 months), alongside pressures from urgent appointments. Problematic practices, including insufficient supervisory support or climates of fear, amplify these effects by eroding flexibility and positive , with regression analyses showing leadership culture positively associated with presenteeism (β = 0.10, p < .001). Organizational policies imposing financial penalties for absenteeism or inadequate exacerbate these drivers, fostering environments where presence signals commitment despite health costs exceeding €4,000 annually per UK employee in lost productivity.

Cultural and Societal Influences

Cultural norms emphasizing attendance and productivity over personal health significantly contribute to presenteeism, as employees internalize expectations that prioritize visible presence at work. In societies where long working hours are glorified, such as those influenced by competitive individualism or hierarchical structures, workers often attend despite illness to avoid perceptions of weakness or unreliability. For instance, a 2024 study of Swiss employees identified workplace cultures valuing constant presence as a key driver, linking it to heightened health risks from suppressed recovery. Cross-cultural comparisons reveal variations tied to societal values like masculinity and collectivism. Research across multiple countries, including those with high masculinity per Hofstede's framework, shows elevated presenteeism rates, where achievement and endurance are prized over well-being. A 2018 analysis found differences in mental and physical presenteeism between Indian and U.S. employees, attributing higher levels in India to cultural tolerance for enduring discomfort in service-oriented roles. In China, national culture fosters presenteeism through relational obligations (e.g., guanxi) and aversion to losing face, compounded by regulatory leniency on overtime. Societal economic pressures exacerbate these influences, particularly in contexts of job insecurity or limited social safety nets. In multicultural settings, stigma against absenteeism—rooted in broader narratives of self-reliance—drives attendance during illness, with empirical data from diverse workforces indicating cultural expectations as a primary differentiator from absenteeism. Post-pandemic shifts have begun challenging these norms in some Western societies, yet persistent leadership styles reinforcing presence continue to sustain presenteeism globally.

Consequences and Outcomes

Impacts on Individual Health and Performance

Presenteeism, the practice of attending work despite health impairments, exacerbates individual health deterioration by delaying recovery and intensifying symptoms. Empirical studies indicate that employees engaging in presenteeism for eight or more days experience significantly elevated odds of moderate or severe exhaustion (odds ratio: 1.7, p<0.05), independent of absenteeism or other factors such as job demands and health status. Among healthcare workers, it correlates with increased burnout, emotional exhaustion, sleep disorders, and prolonged illness duration, with reports of 56% working despite respiratory symptoms that facilitate disease transmission. Latent profile analyses further reveal "dysfunctional presentees" exhibit markedly higher psychosomatic symptoms (mean score: 32.1) and mental health issues (mean: 18.3) compared to functional counterparts (13.9 and 9.6, respectively), underscoring a cycle where impaired health perpetuates further presenteeism. On performance, presenteeism directly impairs task execution and output quality, often more than absenteeism. In a cohort of university employees, eight or more days of presenteeism were associated with a 0.82-point increase in impaired work performance scores (p<0.05), with risk ratios of 3.74 relative to non-presentees, even after adjusting for exhaustion and demographics. Dysfunctional profiles demonstrate low productivity ratings (mean: 1.5 on a scale where higher indicates better performance), contrasted with functional presentees' higher scores (4.3), linking health-driven attendance to reduced efficiency and error-prone work. Systematic reviews confirm associations with diminished concentration, higher accident risks, and suboptimal self-rated work ability, particularly in high-stakes roles like nursing where it compromises care quality. While some "overachieving" individuals sustain output despite poor health, evidence predominantly highlights net declines in cognitive and physical performance capacities.

Organizational Productivity Losses

Presenteeism leads to organizational productivity losses through diminished employee performance, including reduced work speed, lower output quality, increased error rates, and suboptimal decision-making while on the job. Unlike absenteeism, which results in complete unavailability, presenteeism imposes subtler but pervasive drags on efficiency, as impaired workers consume resources without proportional contributions. Empirical analyses consistently indicate that these losses exceed those from absenteeism, with presenteeism accounting for the majority of total health-related productivity impairments in various studies. In the United States, presenteeism has been estimated to cost employers more than $150 billion annually in lost productivity, surpassing absenteeism costs due to its hidden and widespread nature across the workforce. This figure originates from assessments of on-the-job impairments from health conditions, highlighting how presenteeism erodes value in knowledge-based and manual roles alike. Sector-specific data reinforce the scale; for instance, in analyses of chronic conditions among older workers, presenteeism contributes to costs exceeding $180 billion yearly, potentially representing up to 84% of total lost productivity from illness. International evidence aligns with these patterns. In Japan, a study of 27,507 workers extrapolated mental health-related presenteeism losses to $46.73 billion nationally—over 25 times the $1.85 billion from corresponding absenteeism—using self-reported impairment adjusted for labor force participation and wages. In Switzerland, job stress-induced presenteeism accounts for 10.9% of working time lost (versus 3.4% for absenteeism), translating to approximately CHF 195 per employee per month in productivity costs, or 3.2% of average earnings. These estimates, derived from validated scales like the Health and Work Questionnaire, underscore presenteeism's role in inflating operational inefficiencies, such as prolonged task completion and resource misallocation. Beyond direct output reductions, presenteeism amplifies losses via secondary effects, including contagion of illnesses that trigger future absenteeism spikes and heightened accident risks from impaired cognition. For example, in high-stakes environments like healthcare, presenteeism among nurses has been linked to measurable productivity declines of up to 38% per shift, correlating with errors and patient safety incidents. Organizations thus face compounded burdens, as short-term presence masks long-term drains on morale, training needs, and turnover, with self-reported data indicating presenteeism's net economic toll often rivals or exceeds direct absenteeism by factors of 1.5 to 3 in cross-industry reviews.

Potential Upsides and Contextual Benefits

In certain contexts, presenteeism—particularly when voluntary and involving minor impairments—can preserve partial productivity that exceeds the complete output loss from absenteeism, as employees contribute some value rather than none. Empirical analysis of 181 working adults revealed a 75% presenteeism prevalence, with participants reporting sustained performance during recovery under supportive conditions, such as adjustable workloads, contrasting with total unproductivity during absence. This functional form occurs when health issues allow near-full capacity, potentially mitigating economic costs like replacement labor or welfare dependency. Voluntary presenteeism correlates with enhanced individual well-being, including higher work engagement and reduced burnout, as individuals perceive control over their attendance decisions. Participants in a 2021 study rated motivations like demonstrating personal capacity (mean 3.06) and loyalty to teammates (mean 3.38) significantly higher when engaging in presenteeism, fostering self-esteem, self-efficacy, and resilience against illness-related discouragement. Such attendance can also aid recovery by providing structure, distraction from symptoms, and a sense of accomplishment, particularly in roles where work demands align with rehabilitation needs. Organizationally, presenteeism in low-severity cases reduces immediate workload burdens on colleagues, potentially elevating team morale and earning supervisor approval for perceived dedication. Research indicates that this behavior signals commitment, leading to favorable performance evaluations in environments valuing endurance, though benefits hinge on job resources like flexibility to prevent exhaustion. These upsides are context-dependent, emerging primarily in voluntary scenarios with adequate support, rather than coerced attendance amid severe illness.

Measurement Challenges

Existing Tools and Methodologies

Several self-report questionnaires have been developed to quantify presenteeism, typically focusing on the frequency of attending work while impaired by health issues and the resulting impact on task performance or productivity. These instruments often capture dimensions such as cognitive, physical, and emotional limitations, with validation studies emphasizing internal consistency and construct validity over criterion validity against objective productivity metrics. The Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS), introduced in 2002, includes a 6-item short form (SPS-6) that evaluates how often employees work despite feeling ill and the extent to which health problems interfere with work accomplishment on a 0-10 scale, yielding scores indicative of presenteeism severity. The full 13-item version (SPS-13) extends this to broader health-related productivity losses across knowledge- and production-based roles, demonstrating strong reliability (Cronbach's alpha >0.80) in diverse populations but limited evidence for responsiveness to interventions. The Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), available in 25-item (WLQ-25) and abbreviated forms like WLQ-8, measures the percentage of time health conditions limit specific job demands across four domains: physical demands, mental-interpersonal tasks, output demands, and time management, enabling estimation of productivity loss (e.g., 5-10% typical reductions reported in validation samples). Developed for employed adults, it shows good but variable structural fit in factor analyses, with scores correlating moderately with and health status measures. The Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (WHO-HPQ) employs brief, single-item or short-module questions to assess self-rated job on a 0-10 scale alongside hours, facilitating cross-national comparisons of presenteeism costs (e.g., estimating 1-2% daily decrements due to ). Validated in large cohorts, it prioritizes brevity for surveys but relies heavily on subjective recall, with psychometric supporting its use in economic modeling over detailed clinical assessment. Other tools, such as domain-specific adaptations for or , build on these frameworks but often lack comparable broad validation. Overall, these methodologies dominate , though they predominantly capture perceived rather than observed impairments.

Limitations in Empirical Assessment

Empirical assessment of presenteeism faces significant challenges due to the lack of a standardized , which complicates consistent across studies. Researchers have noted that varying conceptualizations—ranging from -related productivity loss to broader impairments—lead to heterogeneous instruments and outcomes, hindering comparability. This definitional ambiguity is compounded by the absence of distinctions in scales for severity (e.g., benign versus severe impairments) or type (e.g., mental versus physical issues), resulting in incomplete capture of the . Most assessments rely on self-report questionnaires, such as the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) or Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), which suffer from subjectivity and potential biases like social desirability or recall errors. Single-item measures, often used for brevity, exhibit limited validity and reliability, prompting calls for multidimensional tools yet revealing persistent psychometric shortcomings in established scales, including poor convergent and . arises when the same respondents provide data on both exposure (e.g., health status) and outcomes (e.g., ), inflating correlations and obscuring . Objective measures of loss attributable to presenteeism remain elusive, as isolating effects from other factors (e.g., job demands or ) requires longitudinal designs rarely employed due to constraints. Systematic reviews highlight a near-total absence of criterion validity , where instruments fail to predict external benchmarks like ratings or economic outputs. Co-occurrence of presenteeism with further muddles attribution, as individuals may alternate behaviors in response to acute conditions like infections, defying clear temporal separation. These limitations contribute to contradictory findings on presenteeism's net effects, with often unable to disentangle positive (e.g., knowledge retention) from negative outcomes, perpetuating debates without robust . Future assessments demand hybrid methods integrating biometric data or administrative records, though issues persist in diverse work contexts.

Controversies and Critical Perspectives

Debates on Net Productivity Effects

Scholars whether presenteeism yields net gains by providing partial output in lieu of total absence or imposes net losses through diminished and cascading effects like error propagation and contagion. Empirical studies predominantly document net losses, with presenteeism-linked impairments reducing at-work by 20-50% in affected employees, often surpassing costs. For instance, analyses of patients reveal that presenteeism contributes disproportionately to total deficits compared to absence alone. Proponents of potential upsides argue that in knowledge-based or team-oriented roles, even suboptimal attendance preserves workflow continuity and leverages fixed costs like training, potentially exceeding zero-output scenarios. A longitudinal study of Taiwanese workers found short-term positive associations, where presenteeism correlated with heightened effort exertion, boosting job performance (β=0.13) and work engagement (β=0.16) one week later, mediated by increased daily effort. However, the same research highlighted reversals over a year, with negative impacts on performance (β=-0.24) and engagement (β=-0.26), underscoring temporal trade-offs. Cross-sectional surveys further suggest perceived positives, such as sustaining company goals and economic stability, rated higher among presenteeism practitioners (M=3.24 vs. 1.70 for non-practitioners), predicting 20% of propensity variance through factors like endurance and supportive conditions. Yet, these benefits appear context-bound, with small samples (n=181) limiting generalizability and failing to establish causality. In high-stakes sectors like nursing, presenteeism robustly predicts productivity drops, independent of such mitigators. Overall, while isolated short-term or motivational gains challenge blanket condemnation, meta-analyses and cost models affirm net deficits, as chronic impairments amplify errors, morale erosion, and future absenteeism, rendering presenteeism a costlier phenomenon than equivalent sick leave in aggregate economic terms.

Ideological and Policy Disputes

Mandatory paid sick leave policies represent a central policy dispute surrounding presenteeism, with proponents arguing they incentivize employees to stay home when ill, thereby reducing workplace contagion and productivity losses from impaired performance. Empirical studies indicate that such mandates increase access to paid leave and decrease instances of working while sick, particularly among women and lower-wage workers, with four out of five reviewed analyses showing reduced presenteeism rates. For example, jurisdictions implementing these policies, such as certain U.S. states since the early 2010s, have observed fewer occupational injuries and lower disease transmission, as employees are less compelled to attend work unwell. Critics, however, contend that mandates disrupt negotiated employer-employee agreements, potentially elevating non-contagious absenteeism and straining small businesses through administrative burdens and higher labor costs, with some evidence of net increases in total sick days taken. Ideologically, presenteeism intersects with broader tensions between valorizing resilience and work dedication versus prioritizing collective health and recovery. In cultures emphasizing a strong Protestant or capitalist , attending work despite illness is often framed as a virtue signaling commitment and avoiding perceptions of weakness, potentially fostering environments where presenteeism is rewarded over rest. This perspective aligns with arguments against expansive policies, viewing them as eroding personal accountability and enabling abuse, as seen in opposition to mandates from business groups concerned with preserving flexibility in labor contracts. Conversely, public health-oriented ideologies advocate for regulatory interventions like mandatory employee screening and exclusion rules to mitigate externalities such as disease spread, positing presenteeism as a addressable through rather than alone. These views draw on evidence that unrestricted sick pay can yield neutral or positive net effects on contagious illness absences by curbing infectious presenteeism, though outcomes vary by illness type and enforcement rigor. Further disputes arise over the balance between rights to manage and employee entitlements to protections, particularly in activation-oriented labor policies that pressure the sick to return prematurely. Some analyses highlight risks to fundamental , such as the right to just working conditions, when economic pressures during downturns amplify presenteeism without adequate safeguards. Empirical data from European contexts, including and , underscore that while generous sick pay reduces harmful presenteeism for infectious cases, it may inadvertently prolong non-contagious absences, fueling debates on optimal policy design to avoid . Pro-mandate evidence from U.S. implementations suggests broader economic benefits like reduced turnover and higher household incomes, yet opponents cite potential declines in labor supply for marginal workers, illustrating causal trade-offs in policy impacts.

Mitigation and Practical Implications

Strategies for Employers and Organizations

Employers can reduce presenteeism through workplace health promotion programs that target modifiable health risks, with preliminary evidence from 10 of 14 reviewed studies indicating improvements in worker productivity. Effective interventions include worksite exercise regimens providing at least one hour per week over several months, supervisor training on mental health recognition, multi-disciplinary occupational health initiatives combining screening and treatment, and multi-component programs incorporating participatory employee involvement. These approaches yield gains by enhancing physical capacity and reducing health-related impairments, though inconsistencies in presenteeism measurement across studies limit definitive conclusions. Managerial support plays a causal in buffering exhaustion from attending work while impaired, as line managers who model healthy behaviors and facilitate open discussions about limitations can lower presenteeism rates. supervisors to identify early signs of illness or stress, coupled with organizational policies for work adjustments like task redistribution and phased return-to-work protocols, enables employees to maintain output without full presence, evidenced by reduced losses in supportive environments. Flexible scheduling and options accommodate recovery needs, decreasing the pressure to report ill while preserving operational continuity, particularly for non-contagious conditions. Policies mandating paid and explicitly discouraging attendance during contagious illnesses further incentivize absence when necessary, as these measures correlate with lower transmission risks and faster recovery times in organizational settings. Shifting away from rewarding constant presence—often termed "hero culture"—toward metrics focused on outcomes rather than hours logged promotes sustainable . Implementing regular screenings and education programs supports proactive identification of at-risk employees, yielding empirical uplifts through early intervention. Comprehensive tracking of presenteeism via validated tools, combined with feedback loops, allows organizations to refine these strategies based on internal .

Individual Responsibility and Cultural Reforms

Employees contribute to mitigating presenteeism by developing of their health and performance limitations, opting to use or personal time for recovery rather than attending work in an impaired state. Personal factors such as feelings of guilt, perceived indispensability, excessive loyalty, or often drive individuals to prioritize over effectiveness, leading to sustained deficits. To counter this, employees can take ownership of their by engaging in practices, such as utilizing available employee assistance programs or seeking early support for stress and , thereby preventing escalation of minor issues into chronic impairments. Cultural reforms require shifting workplace norms away from valuing physical presence or endurance toward rewarding measurable outputs and . Organizations can abandon "hero culture," which glorifies working through illness or exhaustion, by implementing results-oriented metrics that emphasize task completion over hours logged or visible . This includes promoting flexible work formats and clarifying expectations to reduce unnecessary pressures, allowing employees to adapt schedules without fear of reprisal. Leadership plays a pivotal role in these reforms by modeling appropriate boundaries, such as taking sick days openly, to cultivate ; surveys indicate that one-third of employees experience impacts from perceived lack of such safety. Simplifying workloads through regular assessments and training managers to recognize signs of impairment further embeds a culture where recovery is normalized, potentially lowering presenteeism rates observed to have tripled in some regions over the past decade. These changes align incentives with long-term productivity, as presenteeism costs, such as those 1.5 times higher than in certain economies, underscore the economic rationale for prioritizing over habitual attendance.

Recent Developments

Post-COVID Shifts and Remote Work Effects

The accelerated the adoption of , fundamentally altering presenteeism by shifting it from physical attendance to virtual forms, where employees log in while ill to maintain visibility and avoid perceptions of disengagement. This "digital presenteeism" emerged as a response to blurred work-life boundaries and digital surveillance tools, with 77% of remote workers exhibiting sickness presenteeism during the height of the pandemic, driven by pressures to demonstrate through constant online presence. Studies indicate that remote setups amplified psychological distress correlated with presenteeism (r = 0.435), particularly through work-home convergence and isolation, leading to higher odds of presenteeism in hybrid arrangements (OR = 4.1) compared to fully on-site work. However, post-pandemic flexibility in non-healthcare sectors contributed to a decline in overall presenteeism rates, dropping below 10% by 2023 in surveyed Korean workers, as remote options allowed ill employees to rest without full or risking contagion. Prior telework experience further reduced the likelihood of working onsite while ill (21.5% vs. higher rates without experience), enabling better health management. Full-time teleworkers, especially those with less experience, reported elevated presenteeism, but protective practices such as dedicated workspaces (OR = 0.67) and colleague interactions (OR = 0.42) mitigated it, highlighting causal links between ergonomic and social supports and reduced impaired . These shifts underscore a dual effect: while fostered virtual amid economic uncertainties, it also empowered selective disengagement for recovery in supportive environments, with disparities persisting—women facing higher workloads exacerbating presenteeism (p = 0.001). Ongoing research emphasizes supervisor support as key to lowering remote presenteeism days, suggesting that without boundaries, the "" risks normalizing impaired under the guise of flexibility. Recent bibliometric analyses indicate a surge in presenteeism research, with publications growing from 178 in 2018 to 271 in 2020 and reaching 367 articles by 2023, reflecting heightened interdisciplinary interest across , management, and . This expansion underscores hot topics such as emotional stress, social interactions at work, productivity losses, and health outcomes, with influential works like Johns (2010) cited over 1,183 times emphasizing presenteeism's multifaceted drivers. Post-COVID-19 shifts have propelled investigations into virtual and remote presenteeism, where employees attend work digitally despite illness, driven by job insecurity and blurred work-life boundaries. Studies highlight sex-based disparities, with females exhibiting higher rates across sectors, and a reevaluation of sickness presence norms amid hybrid work models. Emerging evidence links mental health-related presenteeism to disproportionately high productivity costs—estimated at $46.73 billion annually in some contexts, over seven times that of —prompting research into its long-term effects on and organizational performance. Measurement challenges persist, with calls for standardized, cross-cultural tools beyond existing scales like the Job Stress-related Presenteeism Scale introduced in 2023. Future directions emphasize longitudinal designs to establish causality, rather than cross-sectional snapshots, and multilevel interventions targeting individual behaviors, organizational policies, and macroeconomic factors such as healthcare expenses. Researchers advocate industry-specific studies (e.g., healthcare, ), global comparisons, and explorations of technology's role in facilitating or mitigating presenteeism, including its intersections with innovative behaviors and dynamics. Additionally, behavioral theories like the are being applied to dissect decision-making processes, revealing attitudes, norms, and perceived control as predictors.

References

  1. https://hbr.org/2004/10/presenteeism-at-work-but-out-of-it
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7413686/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666142X24000882
  4. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01745/full
  5. https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/507_0.pdf
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214139125000794
  7. https://journals.lww.com/joem/fulltext/2025/09000/the_impact_of_productivity_loss_from_presenteeism.3.aspx
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11416405/
  9. https://wol.iza.org/articles/presenteeism-at-the-workplace/long
  10. https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-systematic-review-of-measurement-properties-of-instruments-assessing-presenteeism
  11. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-39113-6
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9976676/
  13. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1029434/pdf
  14. https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmen.0000300
  15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08901171231193781
  16. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1029434/full
  17. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/presenteeism-at-work/presenteeism-a-critical-review-of-the-literature/735A96CAA1A783AFEC202C1B681F9543
  18. https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article/68/8/512/5096926
  19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33596024/
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32868452/
  21. https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12912-023-01454-y
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8175652/
  23. https://rmdopen.bmj.com/content/6/2/e001281
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9706183/
  25. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/9015/coming-to-work-while-sick-an-economic-theory-of-presenteeism-with-an-application-to-german-data
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11604775/
  27. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/26103/1/sbv_wp_2020-08.pdf
  28. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12542
  29. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/presenteeism-at-work/presenteeism-an-introduction-to-a-prevailing-global-phenomenon/3EDBBADA204B214A1AA069454809D5FA
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11500603_PresenteeismOr_When_Being_There_is_Not_Being_There
  31. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/18/prof-coined-presenteeism-employers-force-staff-back-dinosaurs
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301509002_Presenteeism_as_a_global_phenomenon_Unraveling_the_psychosocial_mechanisms_from_the_perspective_of_social_cognitive_theory
  33. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/job.630
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2947637/
  35. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.co-case.org/resource/resmgr/imported/JA_Presenteeism%2520and%2520Employee%2520Health.pdf
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11144874/
  37. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716925/full
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8976112/
  39. https://www.nber.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/dNB18-06%2520Maestas%2C%2520Mullen%2C%2520Rennane.pdf
  40. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-6860-8
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791124000192
  42. https://journals.lww.com/joem/fulltext/2018/05000/total_health_related_costs_due_to_absenteeism%2C.19.aspx
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38958289/
  44. https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article/51/2/354/1777456
  45. https://pure.johnshopkins.edu/en/publications/health-absence-disability-and-presenteeism-cost-estimates-of-cert-3
  46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-025-07857-1
  47. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/10/220
  48. https://academic.oup.com/occmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/occmed/kqaf077/8217392?searchresult=1
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388589739_Factors_Influencing_Presenteeism_The_Role_of_Individual_Characteristics_Job_Demands_and_Job_Insecurity_in_the_Workplace
  50. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7138-x
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6803571/
  52. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1352602/full
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10710828/
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366015763_Leadership_Behavior_Stress_and_Presenteeism_A_Cross-Cultural_Comparison
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/presenteeism-at-work/understanding-presenteeism-in-a-crosscultural-context/6205172BC3F0E583C0377C8E90ED2A13
  56. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/presenteeism-at-work/presenteeism-in-the-chinese-work-context/892DFCC8EA7EC130AE04F20F8824B109
  57. https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/publication/3034390
  58. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13582-3
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258432437_A_cross-cultural_examination_of_presenteeism_and_supervisory_support
  60. https://journals.lww.com/joem/fulltext/2019/11000/exhaustion_and_impaired_work_performance_in_the.14.aspx
  61. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-3789-z
  62. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10198-019-01084-9
  63. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/201445/cdc_201445_DS1.pdf
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7537733/
  65. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.620918/full
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7862752/
  67. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12481
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25880491/
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11802460/
  70. https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/stanford-presenteeism-scale-13
  71. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1251357/full
  72. https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/work-limitations-questionnaire-25
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8432506/
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003999320313150
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3888761/
  76. https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/world-health-organization-health-and-work-performance-questionnaire
  77. https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015%2812%2903926-5/fulltext
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10568462/
  79. https://www.qic-wd.org/umbrella-summary/presenteeism
  80. https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/31460/1/PubSub8879_528a_Whysall.pdf
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8655308/
  82. https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/269432181/Presenteeism_Editorial_Final.pdf
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9262123/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6685003/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9266646/
  86. https://www.freedomfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Effect-of-Mandatory-Paid-Sick-Leave-Policies-Reviewing-the-Evidence.pdf
  87. https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/paid-sick-leave-business-study
  88. https://www.brandeis.edu/enact/archive/ethical-inquiry/2011/paid-sick-leave.html
  89. https://www.nber.org/brd/effects-sick-pay-mandates
  90. https://nationalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/paid-sick-days-attitudes-and-experiences.pdf
  91. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210604-why-presenteeism-always-wins-out-over-productivity
  92. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/pros-and-cons-sick-pay-schemes-contagious-presenteeism-and-noncontagious-absenteeism
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272717301056
  94. https://ius.unibas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/ius/09_Upload_Personenprofile/01_Professuren/Paerli_Kurt/Dateien/Publikationen_PDF/2018/IJCL_Presenteeism_Pa__rli_2018.pdf
  95. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2023/program/paper/sZ94hFzi
  96. https://www.epi.org/blog/paid-sick-leave-improves-workers-health-and-the-economy/
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3123596/
  98. https://academic.oup.com/occmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/occmed/kqaf077/8217392
  99. https://www.firstbeat.com/en/blog/presenteeism-and-why-it-matters-for-every-employer-4-key-steps-to-prevent-presenteeism/
  100. https://ifeelonline.com/occupational-health/presenteeism-at-work/
  101. https://mhfaengland.org/mhfa-centre/blog/how-do-we-tackle-presenteeism-in-the-workplace/
  102. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.748053/full
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11257327/
  104. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/29/2/22-1014_article
  105. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/14/11/1067
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791123000732
  107. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.854976/full
  108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40436621/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.