ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Understanding the Decision-Making Process Between Presenteeism and Absenteeism.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, well being, and presenteeism among hospital porters: a single-center cross-sectional study in Greece.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Explaining presenteeism behaviour with the theory of planned behaviour - a longitudinal study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2024Article
- Risking one's life to save one's livelihood: Precarious work, presenteeism, and worry about disease exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of occupational health psychology · 2023Article
- Contributing Factors of Presenteeism among Portuguese and Swiss Nurses: A Qualitative Study Using Focus Groups.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Sickness presenteeism explained by balancing perceived positive and negative effects.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- The health-performance framework of presenteeism: A proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to their impact on various stakeholder groups, research on the global phenomena of sickness presenteeism (working despite illness) and sickness absenteeism (absence due to illness) is constantly growing. Most studies focus on identifying factors associated with the attendance behaviors. In contrast, there have been few theoretical approaches to explain the individual decision-making process for or against working while ill. Moreover, their empirical verification is still pending. In the present study, we refer to expectancy theory to theoretically explain how the decision is made. To empirically test the model predictions we applied experimental vignette methodology in an online survey with working adults. The hypotheses were confirmed in that the calculated and predicted decisions significantly matched the intentionally chosen decisions. The results contribute to a better theoretical understanding of the decision-making process and provide starting points for interventions to manage attendance behavior in organizations.
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.