Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32931519›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Modeling sickness absence data: A scoping review.

Tom Duchemin, Mounia N Hocine

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Tom DucheminLaboratoire Modélisation, Epidémiologie et Surveillance des Risques Sanitaires, Conservatoire national des arts et métiers, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9131-8705
Mounia N HocineLaboratoire Modélisation, Epidémiologie et Surveillance des Risques Sanitaires, Conservatoire national des arts et métiers, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification of sick leave determinants could positively influence decision making to improve worker quality of life and to reduce consequently costs for society. Sick leave is a research topic of interest in economics, psychology, health and social behaviour. The question of choosing an appropriate statistical tool to analyse sick leave data can be challenging. In fact, sick leave data have a complex structure, characterized by two dimensions: frequency and duration, and involve numerous features related to individual and environmental factors. We conducted a scoping review to characterize statistical approaches to analyse individual sick leave data in order to synthesise key insights from the extensive literature, as well as to identify gaps in research. We followed the PRISMA methodology for scoping reviews and searched Medline, World of Science, Science Direct, Psycinfo and EconLit for publications using statistical modeling for explaining or predicting sick leave at the individual level. We selected 469 articles from the 5983 retrieved, dated from 1981 to 2019. In total, three types of model were identified: univariate outcome modeling using for the most part count models (438 articles), bivariate outcome modeling (14 articles), such as multistate models and structural equation modeling (22 articles). The review shows that there was a lack of evaluation of the models as predictive accuracy was only evaluated in 18 articles and the explanatory accuracy in 43 articles. Further research based on joint models could bring more insights on sick leave spells, considering both their frequency and duration.

Indexed as

AbsenteeismData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleModels, StatisticalQuality of LifeSick LeaveWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID32931519
PMCPMC7491724

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.