ArticleBMC public health2026
Can presenteeism predict future absenteeism? Evidence from the Korean Health Panel Study.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPresenteeism, the act of working while ill, is increasingly recognized as a key occupational health challenge with significant consequences for productivity and future work incapacity. Yet, longitudinal evidence on its temporal interplay with absenteeism remains scarce. We aimed to examine the lagged and bidirectional relationships between presenteeism and absenteeism using nationally representative multi-wave panel data from Korean wage workers.
methodsWe analyzed four waves (2019–2022) of longitudinal survey data from 4,180 baseline participants, with follow-up rates of 76.8% (wave 2), 66.6% (wave 3), and 58.4% (wave 4). Mixed-effects logistic regression models estimated the effect of prior-wave presenteeism on subsequent absenteeism, adjusting for covariates measured at the preceding wave. Bidirectional cross-lagged panel models were used to assess reciprocal relationships over time.
resultsPresenteeism prevalence ranged 12.7–25.0%, exceeding absenteeism prevalence (8.6–12.3%) across all waves. In mixed-effects models, prior-wave presenteeism predicted 30% higher odds of absenteeism at the next wave (odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.08–1.56, p = .005). The bidirectional model showed significant cross-lagged effects from presenteeism to absenteeism in two of three intervals, but absenteeism did not predict future presenteeism. Strong autoregressive effects were observed for presenteeism and absenteeism.
conclusionsPresenteeism is consistently associated with subsequent absenteeism among Korean workers and may serve as a useful risk marker for future absence; however, results should be interpreted as longitudinal associations as within-person effects were attenuated in a random-intercept sensitivity analysis. These findings highlight the potential importance of coordinated policy and organizational approaches—such as statutory paid sick leave, supportive sick leave cultures, and proactive health monitoring—in addressing problematic presenteeism.
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.