Work productivity among adults with varied Body Mass Index: Results from a Canadian population-based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between Body Mass Index (BMI) and work productivity, including absenteeism and presenteeism remains unclear. The objective of this study was to examine work productivity among adults with varied BMI using population-based data. METHODS: Data source was the 2009-2010 Canadian Community Health Survey. The outcomes reflected work absence (absenteeism) and reduced activities at work (presenteeism). The key explanatory variable was BMI in six categories. Logistic regressions were used to measure the association between outcome and explanatory variables adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 56,971 respondents ranging in age from 20 to 69 years. Relative to normal BMI, the odds of absenteeism were higher for those in the obesity class III (OR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.39; 1.83). Presenteeism was weakly associated with all obesity categories (OR=1.49, 95% CI: 1.38; 1.61, for obesity class I). Overweight was marginally associated with absenteeism and presenteeism. Underweight was inversely associated with absenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that obesity is an independent risk factor for reduced work productivity. Both absenteeism and presenteeism were associated with obesity. However, being overweight was weakly associated with work productivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".