Reasons for presenteeism in different occupational branches in Sweden: a population based cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence and reasons for presenteeism in occupations in three branches defined as employees handling people, handling things or handling symbols. METHOD: A cross-sectional population-based cohort study was conducted. The study group was drawn from a representative sample (n = 6230) aged 16-64, who had been interviewed in 2015 or in 2017 for the Swedish Work Environment Surveys (SWES). The odds ratios (ORs) stratified by occupational category for reasons of presenteeism, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using binomial multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The study showed that presenteeism was more common among employees handling people (74%), when compared to employees handling things (65%) or handling symbols (70%). The most common reason for presenteeism among employees handling people was "I do not want to burden my colleagues", while "Because nobody else can carry out my responsibilities" was most common in the other two categories. After control for socio-demography, work environments and health, the differences in reasons mostly remained significant between the three occupational categories. CONCLUSION: The differences between occupational categories are important for prevalence and reasons for presenteeism. As presenteeism affects the future health of employees and the productivity of the work unit, attempts to reduce presenteeism may be important. Because the reasons vary between occupations, customized preventive measures should be applied in different occupational settings. Among employees handling people, covering up for absence in work team is relevant, while among employees handling symbols and handling things the corresponding focus could be on shared responsibilities for specific tasks.

Occupational Branch and Labor Market Marginalization among Young Employees with Adult Onset of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-A Population-Based Matched Cohort Study.

We compared labor market marginalization (LMM), conceptualized as days of unemployment, sickness absence and disability pension, across occupational branches (manufacturing, construction, trade, finance, health and social care, and education), among young employees with or without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and examined whether sociodemographic and health-related factors explain these associations. All Swedish residents aged 19-29 years and employed between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2011 were eligible. Individuals with a first ADHD diagnosis (n = 6030) were matched with ten controls and followed for five years. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to model days of LMM with adjustments for sociodemographic and health-related factors. In total, 20% of those with ADHD and 59% of those without had no days of LMM during the follow-up. The median of those with LMM days with and without ADHD was 312 and 98 days. Having an ADHD diagnosis was associated with a higher incidence of LMM days (incident rate ratios (IRRs) 2.7-3.1) with no differences across occupational branches. Adjustments for sociodemographic and health-related factors explained most of the differences (IRRs: 1.4-1.7). In conclusion, young, employed adults with ADHD had a higher incidence of LMM days than those without, but there were no substantial differences between branches, even after adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related factors.