4.3 Article

A Resourceful Work Environment Moderates the Relationship between Presenteeism and Health. A Study Using Repeated Measures in the Swedish Working Population

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17134711

Keywords

presenteeism; work environment; health protective; Sweden; job demands; job resources

Funding

  1. AFA Insurance [170100]
  2. Swedish Research Council (VR) [2009-06192, 2013-01645, 2013-01646]
  3. Swedish Research Council [2009-06192, 2013-01646, 2013-01645] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to investigate if the psychosocial work environment moderates the proposed negative impact of presenteeism on future general health. We expect that the negative impact of presenteeism on general health is weaker if the psychosocial work environment is resourceful, and more pronounced if the environment is stressful. Data were derived from the 2008-2018 biennial waves of the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH). The final analytic sample consisted ofn= 15,779 individuals. We applied repeated measures regression analyses through generalized estimating equations (GEE). Results from the autoregressive GEE models showed statistically significant interaction terms between presenteeism and all four investigated moderators, i.e., job demands, job control, job support and job strain. The results indicate that the psychosocial work environment moderates the negative association between presenteeism and general health and illustrates a buffering effect of the psychosocial work environment. A possible explanation for these results may be that psychosocially resourceful work environments give room for adjustments in the work situation and facilitate recovery. The results also indicate that by investing the psychosocial work environment employers may be able to promote worker health as well as prevent reduced job performance due to presenteeism.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available