E Aboagye1, I Jensen2, G Bergström2, J Hagberg2, I Axén2, M Lohela-Karlsson2. 1. Department of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden. emmanuel.aboagye@ki.se. 2. Department of Environmental Medicine, Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Besides causing ill health, a poor work environment may contribute to production loss. Production loss assessment instruments emphasize health-related consequences but there is no instrument to measure reduced work performance related to the work environment. AIMS: To examine convergent validity and test-retest reliability of health-related production loss (HRPL) and work environment-related production loss (WRPL) against a valid comparable instrument, the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of employees, not on sick leave, who were asked to self-rate their work performance and production losses. Using the Pearson correlation and Bland and Altman's Test of Agreement, convergent validity was examined. Subgroup analyses were performed for employees recording problem-specific reduced work performance. Consistency of pairs of HRPL and WRPL for samples responding to both assessments was expressed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and tests of repeatability. RESULTS: A total of 88 employees participated and 44 responded to both assessments. Test of agreement between measurements estimates a mean difference of 0.34 for HRPL and -0.03 for WRPL compared with work performance. This indicates that the production loss questions are valid and moderately associated with work performance for the total sample and subgroups. ICC for paired HRPL assessments was 0.90 and 0.91 for WRPL, i.e. the test-retest reliability was good and suggests stability in the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: HRPL and WRPL can be used to measure production loss due to health-related and work environment-related problems. These results may have implications for advancing methods of assessing production loss, which represents an important cost to employers.
BACKGROUND: Besides causing ill health, a poor work environment may contribute to production loss. Production loss assessment instruments emphasize health-related consequences but there is no instrument to measure reduced work performance related to the work environment. AIMS: To examine convergent validity and test-retest reliability of health-related production loss (HRPL) and work environment-related production loss (WRPL) against a valid comparable instrument, the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of employees, not on sick leave, who were asked to self-rate their work performance and production losses. Using the Pearson correlation and Bland and Altman's Test of Agreement, convergent validity was examined. Subgroup analyses were performed for employees recording problem-specific reduced work performance. Consistency of pairs of HRPL and WRPL for samples responding to both assessments was expressed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and tests of repeatability. RESULTS: A total of 88 employees participated and 44 responded to both assessments. Test of agreement between measurements estimates a mean difference of 0.34 for HRPL and -0.03 for WRPL compared with work performance. This indicates that the production loss questions are valid and moderately associated with work performance for the total sample and subgroups. ICC for paired HRPL assessments was 0.90 and 0.91 for WRPL, i.e. the test-retest reliability was good and suggests stability in the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: HRPL and WRPL can be used to measure production loss due to health-related and work environment-related problems. These results may have implications for advancing methods of assessing production loss, which represents an important cost to employers.
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Catherine Barber; Arne Beck; Patricia Berglund; Paul D Cleary; David McKenas; Nico Pronk; Gregory Simon; Paul Stang; T Bedirhan Ustun; Phillip Wang Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Malin Lohela Karlsson; Gunnar Bergström; Christina Björklund; Jan Hagberg; Irene Jensen Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Louise M A Braakman-Jansen; Erik Taal; Ina H Kuper; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Nidhi Gupta; Johanna M van Dongen; Andreas Holtermann; Allard J van der Beek; Matthew Leigh Stevens; Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.306
Authors: G Bergström; M Lohela-Karlsson; L Kwak; L Bodin; I Jensen; M Torgén; L Nybergh Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen; Peter Rasmus Hendriksen; Malene Jagd Svendsen; Dorte Ekner; Klaus Hansen; Ole Henning Sørensen; Susanne Wulff Svendsen; Allard J van der Beek; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Trials Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Elisabeth Björk Brämberg; Kristina Holmgren; Ute Bültmann; Hanna Gyllensten; Jan Hagberg; Lars Sandman; Gunnar Bergström Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sven Svensson; David M Hallman; SvendErik Mathiassen; Marina Heiden; Arne Fagerström; Jean Claude Mutiganda; Gunnar Bergström Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Mark Lidegaard; Anders Fritz Lerche; Pernille Kold Munch; Kathrine Greby Schmidt; Charlotte Lund Rasmussen; Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Leon Straker; Andreas Holtermann Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 3.295