Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38797696›Full record

ArticleIndustrial health2025

Relationship between pain catastrophizing and pain self-efficacy and presenteeism in workers: a cross-sectional-study focusing on gender differences.

Toshiki Kishimoto, Yoshinori Kitabatake, Takayuki Taguchi, Hiroaki Nobuhara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Industrial health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Toshiki KishimotoDepartment of Rehabilitation Technology, Ina Hospital, Japan.
Yoshinori KitabatakeDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Health and Social Services, Saitama Prefectural University, Japan.
Takayuki TaguchiDepartment of Physical Therapy, School of Health and Social Services, Saitama Prefectural University, Japan.
Hiroaki NobuharaDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Health and Social Services, Saitama Prefectural University, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Presenteeism has been noted to be associated with cognitive factors of pain, such as pain catastrophizing (PC) and pain self-efficacy (PS). Pain perception differs by gender, so it is important to consider gender differences when examining the association between cognitive factors of pain and presenteeism. This study aimed to examine the association between presenteeism and cognitive factors of pain, taking gender differences into account. A cross-sectional survey of 305 workers was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire that included items on pain status, PC, PS, and work performance. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to test whether PC and PS independently influence presenteeism, separately for men and women. Logistic regression analysis showed that PC was extracted in men, and the group with severe PC had higher odds of presenteeism (odds ratio 6.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.83-23.40). Contrarily, PS was extracted in women, with higher odds of presenteeism in the moderate (odds ratio 2.54, 95% CI 1.01-6.39) and low (odds ratio 5.43, 95% CI 1.31-22.50) PS groups than in the high PS. This study showed that the cognitive factors of pain related to presenteeism may differ by gender.

Indexed as

CatastrophizationPainPresenteeismSelf EfficacyAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSex FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesGender differencesPain catastrophizingPain self-efficacyPresenteeismWork functioning

Identifiers

PMID38797696
PMCPMC11779513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.