ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2016
Validity and test-retest reliability of an at-work production loss instrument.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of a problem-solving intervention with workplace involvement on self-reported sick leave, psychological symptoms and work ability: a cluster randomised clinical trial.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness- and cost effectiveness of a structured method for systematic and integrated occupational safety and health and patient safety management systems (SIOHPS) - a study protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Copen-SCALE: scaling-up an effective intervention to childcare institutions in Copenhagen - a stepped wedge type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. A study protocol.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The influence of psychosocial factors on productivity when implementing new office designs - a longitudinal explorative study in the Swedish public sector.BMC public health · 2025Article
- A Quantitative Study on Employees' Experiences of a Support Model for Systematic Work Environment Management in Swedish Municipalities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Article
- Do Attitudes towards Work or Work Motivation Affect Productivity Loss among Academic Employees?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Prevention of sick leave at the workplace: design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a problem-solving intervention among employees with common mental disorders.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Construct validity and test-retest reliability of the World Mental Health Japan version of the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire Short Version: a preliminary study.Industrial health · 2020Article
- Can childcare work be designed to promote moderate and vigorous physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness and health? Study protocol for the Goldilocks-childcare randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Study protocol of an effect and process evaluation of the Stamina model; a Structured and Time-effective Approach through Methods for an Inclusive and Active working life.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- Perceived health and work-environment related problems and associated subjective production loss in an academic population.BMC public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBesides causing ill health, a poor work environment may contribute to production loss. Production loss assessment instruments emphasize health-related consequences but there is no instrument to measure reduced work performance related to the work environment.
aimsTo examine convergent validity and test-retest reliability of health-related production loss (HRPL) and work environment-related production loss (WRPL) against a valid comparable instrument, the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ).
methodsCross-sectional study of employees, not on sick leave, who were asked to self-rate their work performance and production losses. Using the Pearson correlation and Bland and Altman's Test of Agreement, convergent validity was examined. Subgroup analyses were performed for employees recording problem-specific reduced work performance. Consistency of pairs of HRPL and WRPL for samples responding to both assessments was expressed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and tests of repeatability.
resultsA total of 88 employees participated and 44 responded to both assessments. Test of agreement between measurements estimates a mean difference of 0.34 for HRPL and -0.03 for WRPL compared with work performance. This indicates that the production loss questions are valid and moderately associated with work performance for the total sample and subgroups. ICC for paired HRPL assessments was 0.90 and 0.91 for WRPL, i.e. the test-retest reliability was good and suggests stability in the instrument.
conclusionsHRPL and WRPL can be used to measure production loss due to health-related and work environment-related problems. These results may have implications for advancing methods of assessing production loss, which represents an important cost to employers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.