ArticleBMJ public health2025
Use of benefits during pregnancy: a cohort study in four organisations in Spain.
Article in BMJ public 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To analyse the use of either sick leave (SL) benefit and/or pregnancy-related occupational risk (POR) benefit by workers taking work absence during pregnancy. Methods: Retrospective cohorts of working women from the beginning to the end of pregnancy in three public hospitals and one pharmaceutical company, between 2015 and 2019. We measured the frequency and duration of absences, by age and occupational variables, and cumulative absence days, classifying work status as at work, on SL and on POR absence. Differences between groups for each variable were analysed through the Kruskal-Wallis rank test followed by Dunn's Pairwise Comparisons. Sequence analysis was used to identify pregnancy trajectories. Results: Among 1116 pregnant workers, absence days due to SL ranged from 9.9% to 28.6% of total possible working days, from 9.2% to 38.4% due to POR, while only 3.9% did not take any absence. Nurse aides and nurses used benefits most often and for the longest duration with respect to other occupational categories (p value<0.001). Age had no statistically significant difference (p value=0.245). Three pregnancy trajectories were identified, characterised by mostly active work, active work combined with POR and active work with SL, with differences by workplace, occupation and work area (p value<0.001). The total time in days during which pregnant women were actively working ranged between 56% and 64% depending on the organisation. Conclusions: This study in four organisations shows a very similar pattern regarding total time absent from work during pregnancy. Women were actively working for two-thirds of their pregnancy. Of the remaining time, while in two organisations, absences were mainly due to SL, in other two were due to POR. Organisational variations in the management of pregnant women could be an explanation. We need further investigation on this topic.
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.