ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2022
Predicting long-term sickness absence among retail workers after four days of sick-listing.
Article in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThis study tested and validated an existing tool for its ability to predict the risk of long-term (ie, ≥6 weeks) sickness absence (LTSA) after four days of sick-listing.
methodsA 9-item tool is completed online on the fourth day of sick-listing. The tool was tested in a sample (N=13 597) of food retail workers who reported sick between March and May 2017. It was validated in a new sample (N=104 698) of workers (83% retail) who reported sick between January 2020 and April 2021. LTSA risk predictions were calibrated with the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test; non-significant H-L P-values indicated adequate calibration. Discrimination between workers with and without LTSA was investigated with the area (AUC) under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
resultsThe data of 2203 (16%) workers in the test sample and 14 226 (13%) workers in the validation sample was available for analysis. In the test sample, the tool together with age and sex predicted LTSA (H-L test P=0.59) and discriminated between workers with and without LTSA [AUC 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.87]. In the validation sample, LTSA risk predictions were adequate (H-L test P=0.13) and discrimination was excellent (AUC 0.91, 95% CI 0.90-0.92). The ROC curve had an optimal cut-off at a predicted 36% LTSA risk, with sensitivity 0.85 and specificity 0.83.
conclusionThe existing 9-item tool can be used to invite sick-listed retail workers with a ≥36% LTSA risk for expedited consultations. Further studies are needed to determine LTSA cut-off risks for other economic sectors.
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.