ArticleAIMS public health2026
Presenteeism among healthcare professionals in Mongolia: A mixed-method multicenter study.
Article in AIMS 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Presenteeism, defined as attending work while ill, is a growing concern among healthcare professionals due to its impact on well-being, work function, and the quality of care. Despite extensive global research, evidence from Mongolia remains limited, where workforce shortages and systemic constraints uniquely shape presenteeism. We examined factors associated with presenteeism among Mongolian healthcare professionals. Methods: This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-method design. The quantitative phase consisted of a cross-sectional online survey of physicians and nurses at three referral-level state hospitals, who were selected by convenience sampling. The qualitative phase consisted of semi-structured interviews with clinician managers, selected through purposeful sampling until thematic saturation was reached. Data were thematically analyzed, and the findings were integrated through triangulation. Results: A total of 465 survey respondents (physicians and nurses) participated in the quantitative phase, of which 64.5% reported presenteeism. The factors significantly associated with presenteeism were psycho-physical health complaints (AOR = 4.51, p < 0.001), coworkers' support (AOR = 2.38, p < 0.001), and workload (AOR = 2.08, p < 0.001). Qualitative analysis of 14 interviews with clinician managers identified five interrelated themes: inadequate occupational health policy, shortcomings of occupational infrastructure, staff shortages and heavy workloads, informal workplace practices and professional norms, and unaddressed health burdens. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings indicates that these associations are shaped by underlying organizational and structural conditions. Qualitative data explain how heavy workload, staff shortages, and informal workplace norms compel healthcare professionals to work despite illness, while strained coworker relationships reflect peer pressure and team-based expectations. Taken together, similar to the existing global literature, the results reveal that structural and organizational challenges, rather than individual health-related behaviors, are the primary drivers of presenteeism in this context. Conclusions: The findings suggest that addressing presenteeism among healthcare professionals in Mongolia and similar low-resource settings requires coordinated national efforts targeting workplace conditions, organizational support, and occupational health policies to promote workforce well-being.
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.