Multifaceted analysis of presenteeism: contributions of pain, psychological factors and daily functioning – a cross-sectional study in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Presenteeism, defined as reduced work efficiency due to health issues despite attending work, accounts for a substantial proportion of labour productivity loss. Although pain significantly impacts presenteeism, the relationship between pain and presenteeism remains poorly understood due to the multifaceted nature of pain, encompassing psychosocial factors and daily functioning. This study aimed to identify which of these factors are significantly associated with presenteeism among employees. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using self-administered questionnaires and generalised additive model analysis. SETTING: Multiple workplaces (including a university and hospitals) in Japan. PARTICIPANTS: Employed individuals (n=212, age range: 20-65 years; 59 males and 153 females) participated. They were recruited through workplace bulletin boards, email announcements and direct invitations. Participants with and without chronic pain were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants completed self-report measures, including the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS), Beck Depression Inventory-second edition (BDI-II), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). RESULTS: The results indicated that absolute HPQ was significantly associated with BDI-II scores (F=4.51, p=0.035). On the other hand, relative HPQ was influenced by SF-MPQ (F=3.76, p=0.005), PCS (F=4.16, p=0.014), STAI (F=5.62, p=0.019) and limited daily activities (F=13.25, p=0.00035). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that presenteeism is multifactorial, with pain, psychosocial factors and daily functioning playing critical roles. Moreover, the impact of depression on presenteeism differs from that of pain and anxiety. Therefore, tailored intervention approaches may be required for each factor, ultimately improving workplace productivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was preregistered at UMIN-CTR (UMIN000054797).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".