nach oben

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

Erschienen in:

18.11.2022 | Meta Review

How Much Does Presenteeism Change in Response to Interventions or Alterations in Health Status? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using the COSMIN Methodology

verfasst von: Adria Quigley, Navaldeep Kaur, Sorayya Askari, Nancy Mayo

Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Ausgabe 2/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which measures of presenteeism among workers change in response to alterations in health status induced by treatment or natural history. Methods We searched eight databases in August 2020 for studies published since 2012 measuring presenteeism longitudinally. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and performed data extraction. Studies were stratified into longitudinal studies using presenteeism as an outcome and measurement studies designed to test the responsiveness of presenteeism measures. We appraised the methodological quality of the measurement studies using the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Standardized response means (SRMs) for interventional studies where participants reported improvement on anchor measures were quantitatively pooled.Results Our searches returned 2882 results. Eleven measurement studies and 126 longitudinal studies were included. Of the measurement studies (n = 2625 participants), 7 had adequate study quality and 4 studies were deemed doubtful. Anchors and responsiveness methods varied considerably. Our estimate of responsiveness from 5 measurement studies and 4 presenteeism measures is an SRM of 0.85 (95% CI 0.77, 0.92) and Cohen’s d of 0.54 (95% CI 0.49, 0.58), translating to an average important change of 17/100. For deterioration, the value is − 17/100. Conclusions We found considerable variation regarding how responsiveness data was reported in measurement studies. There is evidence that responsiveness is strong for four presenteeism measures: the Work Productivity Survey, the Work Functioning Impairment Scale, the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire, and the Nurses Work Functioning Questionnaire.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Beaton D, Bombardier C, Escorpizo R, Zhang W, Lacaille D, Boonen A, et al. Measuring worker productivity: frameworks and measures. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(9):2100–9.PubMedCrossRef

Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, 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.PubMedCrossRef

Aronsson G, Gustafsson K. Sickness Presenteeism: Prevalence, attendance-pressure factors, and an outline of a model for research. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47(9):958–66.PubMedCrossRef

Ospina MB, Dennett L, Waye A, Jacobs P, Thompson AH. A systematic review of measurement properties of instruments assessing presenteeism. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(2):e171–85.PubMed

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.PubMedCrossRef

Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Morganstein D. Lost productive work time costs from health conditions in the United States: results From the American productivity audit. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(12):1234–46.PubMedCrossRef

Biron C, Brun JP, Ivers H, Cooper C. At work but ill: psychosocial work environment and well-being determinants of presenteeism propensity. J Public Ment Health. 2006;5(4):26–37.CrossRef

Silva-Costa A, Ferreira PCS, Griep RH, Rotenberg L. Association between Presenteeism, psychosocial aspects of work and common mental disorders among nursing personnel. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(18):6758–6758.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Skagen K, Collins AM. The consequences of sickness presenteeism on health and wellbeing over time: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2016;161:169–77.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Demerouti E, Le Blanc PM, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Hox J. Present but sick: a three-wave study on job demands, presenteeism and burnout. Career Dev Int. 2009;14(1):50–68.CrossRef

11.

Merrill RM, Aldana SG, Pope JE, Anderson DR, Coberley CR, William WR, The HRSS. Presenteeism according to healthy behaviors, physical health, and work environment. Popul Health Manag. 2012;15(5):293–301.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Virtanen M, Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Ferrie JE. From insecure to secure employment: changes in work, health, health related behaviours, and sickness absence. Occup Env Med. 2003;60(12):948–53.CrossRef

13.

Kim JY, Lee J, Muntaner C, Kim SS. Who is working while sick? Nonstandard employment and its association with absenteeism and Presenteeism in South Korea. Int Arch Occup Env Health. 2016;89(7):1095–101.CrossRef

14.

European agency on safety and health at work. European agency on safety and health at work. Expert forecast on emerging psychosocial risks related to occupational safety and health. Brussels. 2007 [cited 2021 Oct 15]:[pp. 1–129]. Available from: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/report-expert-forecast-emerging-psychosocial-risks-related-occupational-safety-and-health-osh

15.

Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, et al. The world health organization health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Env Med. 2003;45(2):156–74.CrossRef

16.

Lerner D, Amick BC, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39(1):72–85.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4:353–65.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Endicott J, Nee J. Endicott work productivity scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1997;33(1):13–6.PubMed

19.

Kinman G. Sickness Presenteeism at work: prevalence, costs and management. Br Med Bull. 2019;129(1):107–16.CrossRef

20.

Ramada JM, Delclos GL, Amick BC, Abma FI, Pidemunt G, Castaño JR, et al. Responsiveness of the work role functioning questionnaire (Spanish version) in a general working population. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(2):189–94.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Guo YJ, Tang J, Li JM, Zhu LL, Xu JS. Exploration of interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients: a scoping review. Clin Rehabil. 2021;35(12):1674–93.PubMedCrossRef

22.

de Boer AGEM. The European cancer and work network: CANWON. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(3):393–8.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Green TL, McGovern H, Hinkle JL. Understanding return to work after stroke internationally: a scoping review. J Neurosci Nurs. 2021;53(5):194–200.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):1–10.CrossRef

25.

De Vet H, Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D. Measurement in medicine: In: Terwee CB, Knol DL, de Vet HCW, Mokkink LB, editors. a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 202–26.

26.

Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 6.2. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ WV, editor. 2021.

27.

Roy JS, Desmeules F, MacDermid JC. Psychometric properties of presenteeism scales for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(1):23–31.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Mateen BA, Doogan C, Hayward K, Hourihan S, Hurford J, Playford ED. Systematic review of health-related work outcome measures and quality criteria-based evaluations of their psychometric properties. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(3):534–60.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A review of methods to measure health-related productivity loss. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(4):211–7.PubMed

30.

Abma FI, van der Klink JJL, Terwee CB, Amick BCIII, Bültmann U. Evaluation of the measurement properties of self-reported health-related work-functioning instruments among workers with common mental disorders. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38(1):5–18.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Williams RM, Schmuck G, Allwood S, Sanchez M, Shea R, Wark G. Psychometric evaluation of health-related work outcome measures for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):504–21.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Nieuwenhuijsen K, Franche RL, Van Dijk FJH. Work functioning measurement: tools for occupational mental health research. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(8):778–90.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

34.

Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, De Vet HCW. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1115–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

35.

Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation; 2017.

36.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29(372): n160.CrossRef

37.

Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RWJG, Bouter LM, De Vet HCW. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651–7.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Gibbons E, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) Checklist. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Kaur N, Dendukuri N, Fellows LK, Brouillette MJ, Mayo N. Association between cognitive reserve and cognitive performance in people with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Care. 2020;32(1):1–11.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15–e15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

43.

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. United Kingdom: Wiley; 2009.CrossRef

44.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. p. 25.

45.

Middel B, van Sonderen E. Erratum. Int J Integr Care. 2008;8:e72–e72.PubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Thompson, Angus, Ospina, Maria, Dennett, Liz, Waye, Arianna, Jacobs, Philip. A systematic review of the measurement properties of self-report instruments that assess presenteeism. Institute of Health Economics. 2015.

47.

Abma FI, Van Der Klink JJL, Bültmann U. The work role functioning questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch Version): examination of its reliability, Validity and responsiveness in the general working population. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(1):135–47.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Beemster TT, van Velzen JM, van Bennekom CAM, Reneman MF, Frings-Dresen MHW. Test-retest reliability, agreement and responsiveness of productivity loss (iPCQ-VR) and healthcare utilization (TiCP-VR) questionnaires for sick workers with chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Occup Rehabil. 2019;29(1):91–103.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Gärtner FR, Nieuwenhuijsen K, Van Dijk FJH, Sluiter JK. Interpretability of change in the nurses work functioning questionnaire: minimal important change and smallest detectable change. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1337–47.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Ishimaru T, Fujino Y, Anzai T, Matsuda S, Tanaka Y. Validity and responsiveness of the work functioning impairment scale (WFun) in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a multicenter prospective study. Mod Rheumatol. 2020;30(5):821–7.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Koopmans L, Coffeng JK, Bernaards CM, Boot CR, Hildebrandt VH, De Vet HC, et al. Responsiveness of the individual work performance questionnaire. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1–12.CrossRef

52.

Osterhaus JT, Purcaru O. Discriminant validity, responsiveness and reliability of the arthritis-specific work productivity survey assessing workplace and household productivity in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(4):1–14.

53.

Osterhaus JT, Purcaru O. Discriminant validity, responsiveness and reliability of the arthritis-specific work productivity survey assessing workplace and household productivity within and outside the home in patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including nonradiographic axial s. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(1):1–16.

54.

Seyedrezazadeh E, Ansarin K, Sharifi A, Jafari Rouhi AH, Gilani N, Aftabi Y, et al. Validation of the Persian work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire in asthmatic patients. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2020;14(7):757–62.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Tillett W, Lin CY, Zbrozek A, Sprabery AT, Birt J. A threshold of meaning for work disability improvement in psoriatic arthritis measured by the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire. Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(3):379–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

56.

Tamminga SJ, Verbeek JHAM, Frings-Dresen MHW, De Boer AGEM. Measurement properties of the Work Limitations questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):515–25.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Bouwmans C, De Jong K, Timman R, Zijlstra-Vlasveld M, Van der Feltz-Cornelis C, Tan SS, et al. Feasibility, reliability and validity of a questionnaire on healthcare consumption and productivity loss in patients with a psychiatric disorder (TiC-P). BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):217.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

58.

Bouwmans-Frijters C, Krol M, Severens H, Koopmanschap M, Brouwer W, Hakkaart-van RL. The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire a standardized instrument for measuring and valuing health-related productivity losses. Value Health. 2015;18(6):753–8.

59.

Goodwin LD, Leech NL, The S, Education E, Spring N, Taylor P, et al. Understanding correlation: factors that affect the size of r. J Exp Educ. 2006;74(3):251–66.CrossRef

Titel: How Much Does Presenteeism Change in Response to Interventions or Alterations in Health Status? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using the COSMIN Methodology
verfasst von: Adria Quigley
Navaldeep Kaur
Sorayya Askari
Nancy Mayo
Publikationsdatum: 18.11.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Ausgabe 2/2023
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-022-10082-3

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2023

Differences in Modified-Return-to-Work by Immigration Characteristics Among a Cohort of Workers in British Columbia, Canada

Preventing Pain and Stress-Related Ill-Health in Employees: A 6-Months Follow-Up of a Psychosocial Program in a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Integrative Prevention at Work: A Concept Analysis and Meta-Narrative Review

Return to Work for People with Common Mental Disorders: Insights into the Implementation of a Collaborative Program in a Specialized Mental Health Hospital

What is Safe Long COVID Rehabilitation?

A Multi-component Intervention (NEXpro) Reduces Neck Pain-Related Work Productivity Loss: A Randomized Controlled Trial Among Swiss Office Workers