Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31226966›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2019

A systematic review of infectious illness Presenteeism: prevalence, reasons and risk factors.

R K Webster, R Liu, K Karimullina, I Hall, R Amlôt, G J Rubin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Explaining presenteeism behaviour with the theory of planned behaviour - a longitudinal study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2024
    Article
  14. Presenteeism among nurses: An integrative review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

R K WebsterDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England. Rebecca.webster@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5136-1098
R LiuDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
K KarimullinaDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
I HallNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, England.
R AmlôtNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London, London, England.
G J RubinDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.

Funding

NIHR HPRU HPRU-2012-10414
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorkplace presenteeism is common and leads to the spread of infectious diseases. Previous reviews have focused on presenteeism in relation to general physical or mental ill health. In this systematic review we identified the prevalence of, and reasons and risk factors for, presenteeism in relation to an infectious illness.

methodWe searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES with terms relating to infectious illnesses and presenteeism at the work place or school; reference lists of relevant articles were also hand-searched.

resultOur search yielded 3580 papers after deduplication. After title, abstract and full text screening, 23 papers reporting on 24 studies were included. Twenty-three studies were cross-sectional studies and one was prospective. The quality of included studies was relatively poor due to problems such as sampling and non-response bias. Presenteeism prevalence ranged from 35 to 97%. Self-reported reasons for presenteeism fell into three main themes: 1. Organisational factors (organisational policy, presenteeism culture, disciplinary action), 2. Job characteristics (lack of cover, professionalism, job demand), and 3. Personal reasons (burden on colleagues, colleague perceptions, threshold of sickness absence and financial concerns). Statistical risk factors fell into four themes: 1. Sociodemographic, 2. Health, 3. Influenza-related behaviour, and 4. Employment characteristics. Most of the risk factors had insufficient evidence to allow us to draw any firm conclusions, and evidence regarding gender and age was inconsistent. The risk factor with the most consistent findings concerned occupation type, suggesting that those who worked in the healthcare sector, and specifically physicians, were at a higher risk of infectious illness presenteeism.

conclusionInfectious illness presenteeism is common. To address the public health consequences, organisations should focus on promoting a positive working culture and developing sickness absence policies that reduce presenteeism. Further research is needed in non-health sector organisations and schools to identify risk factors related to different organisations, which can then be used to tailor interventions at the organisational and individual level.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesHumansPresenteeismPrevalenceRisk FactorsFluInfectious illnessInfluenza-like-illnessPresenteeismPrevalenceRisk factorsWorking while ill

Identifiers

PMID31226966
PMCPMC6588911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.