Employee absenteeism measures reflecting current work practices may be instrumental in a re-evaluation of the relationship between psychological distress/mental health and absenteeism.

Absenteeism rates are the cornerstone metrics guiding corporate policy for health care investment in employees. However, traditional absenteeism measures do not reflect the contemporary workplace milieu. It is accepted practice that employees work evenings or weekends to makeup time. Using a hours-based absenteeism measure, that accounts for time made-up as well as time lost, this paper evaluates the impact of psychological distress on employee absenteeism.Psychological distress and absenteeism data were collected from 54,264 full-time employees. Consistent with traditional approaches, employees indicated how many days they were absent. Hours based absenteeism was formulated from the ratio of how many hours the employees worked and how many hours were they expected to work in the past seven-days.Concordant with previous concinnous evidence, traditional absenteeism computation indicated that elevated psychological distress is associated with increasing absenteeism. Using the hours-based method psychological distress did not significantly influence absenteeism.Traditional calculations of absenteeism do not reflect the current work practices of the majority of employees. Employees with psychological distress may take time off work but it appears that they make up for lost time possibly to stay up to speed with task driven occupations and avoid performance review.

Employee psychological distress and treated prevalence by indices of rurality.

OBJECTIVE: Although there is population data on the prevalence and treated prevalence of mental disorders by urban-rural indices, there is a lacuna of information pertaining to employees. This paper examines the prevalence and treated prevalence of psychological distress in employees by urban-rural indicators. METHODS: Cross-sectional employee Health and Performance at Work Questionnaire responses (n=78,726 from 58 large companies) are interrogated by indices of remoteness (Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia), psychological distress (Kessler 6) and treatment-seeking behaviours for mental health problems. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of moderate or high psychological distress in employees was 35.2%. The prevalence varied only slightly (maximum to minimum difference of 4.6%) by rural/remote indices. Overall treatment-seeking behaviour for psychological distress was low (22.5%). The percentage of employees seeking treatment for high levels of psychological distress was the lowest in very remote regions (15.1%). CONCLUSION: Very remote employees are less likely to access mental health treatments and may be an employee subgroup that would benefit from specific employer health interventions aimed to increase treatment-seeking behaviours. IMPLICATIONS: Employees in very remote Australia could benefit from specific interventions aimed to increase mental health awareness/literacy.

The association between mental disorders and productivity in treated and untreated employees.

OBJECTIVES: In a large cross-sectional study, this article investigates associations between employee work productivity, psychological distress, and the treatment of mental disorders. METHODS: Sixty thousand five hundred fifty-six Australian employees completed the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). The HPQ quantified treatment seeking behavior for depression, anxiety, or other mental disorders. The HPQ also evaluated the level of psychological distress (Kessler 6 [K6]) and employee productivity measures. RESULTS: The productivity of employees without psychological distress and who have not been in treatment of a mental disorder was 20% (SE = 0.3%). The productivity of a successfully treated employee (low K6) for a mental disorder was 17% (SE = 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of mental disorders resulting in normalization of symptoms is associated with employees' productivity returning to values approaching those of employees without a history of a mental disorder.

Mental ill-health and the differential effect of employee type on absenteeism and presenteeism.

OBJECTIVE: Mental ill-health results in substantial reductions in employee productivity (absenteeism and presenteeism). This paper examines the relationship between employee psychological distress, employee type and productivity. METHOD: Utilizing the Health and Performance at Work Questionnaire, in a sample of 60,556 full-time employees, the impact that psychological distress (Kessler 6) imposes on employee productivity by occupation type is examined. RESULTS: Comparison of white-collar workers absenteeism rates by low and high psychological distress reveals no statistically significant difference. Nevertheless, the same comparison for blue-collar workers reveals that high psychological distress results in an 18% increase in absenteeism rates. High K6 score resulted in a presenteeism increase of 6% in both blue and white-collar employees. CONCLUSION: The novel finding is that mental ill-health produces little to no absenteeism in white-collar workers yet a profound absenteeism increase in the blue-collar sector.

The prevalence of psychological distress in employees and associated occupational risk factors.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited occupational health industry data pertaining to 1) the prevalence of psychological distress in various employee subtypes and 2) risk factors for employee psychological distress. METHOD: The employees of 58 large public and private sector employers were invited to complete the Kessler 6 (K6) as part of the Health and Performance at Work Questionnaire. A K6 score of > or =13 was chosen to indicate high psychological distress. RESULTS: Data on 60,556 full-time employees indicate that 4.5% of employees have high psychological distress of which only 22% were in current treatment. Occupational risk factors identified include long working hours, sales staff and non-traditional gender roles. CONCLUSION: High psychological distress is pervasive across all employee subtypes and remains largely untreated. Risk factors identified will guide the targeting of mental health promotion, prevention and screening programs.