| Literature DB >> 31417468 |
Yongxin Li1, Jihao Zhang1, Shengnan Wang1, Shujie Guo2.
Abstract
Background: Seventy-four percent of Chinese employees have experienced working with illness, but limited number of researchers have paid attention on this phenomenon. Most of the previous research on presenteeism has almost exclusively focused on North America and Europe and have gone to the financial emphasis. The current researches have two shortages, which are laying in the consensus on the definition and measurement of presenteeism, as well as the mechanism of presenteeism and its outcomes have set barriers for scholars to generate deeper understanding of the behavior. The aim of the present study was to explore the current situation of presenteeism among Chinese nurses and the mediating effect of health and the moderating effect of general self-efficacy between presenteeism and productivity loss.Entities:
Keywords: China; general self-efficacy; health; nurse; presenteeism; productivity loss
Year: 2019 PMID: 31417468 PMCID: PMC6685003 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01745
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1The hypothesized model.
Means of the SPQ (%).
| Items | 1 (Never) | 2 (Once) | 3 (2–5 times) | 4 (>5 times) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Although you feel sick, you still force yourself to go to work. | 13(3.8) | 43(12.6) | 152(44.7) | 132(38.8) |
| 2. Although you have physical symptoms such as headache or backache, you still force yourself to go to work. | 9(2.6) | 36(10.6) | 139(40.9) | 156(45.9) |
SPQ, Sickness Presenteeism Questionnaire.
Descriptives and correlations among the demographic characteristics and SPQ scores.
| Variables | Categories | Case | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age/year | ≤25 | 107 | 3.11 ± 0.79 | 3.15 | 0.038 |
| 26–30 | 163 | 3.27 ± 0.69 | |||
| ≥31 | 70 | 3.38 ± 0.69 | |||
| Marital status | Unmarried | 145 | 3.12 ± 0.71 | −2.79 | 0.006 |
| Married | 195 | 3.34 ± 0.72 | |||
| Education level | College and below | 79 | 3.14 ± 0.73 | −1.46 | 0.147 |
| Bachelor and above | 261 | 3.27 ± 0.72 | |||
| Tenure | ≤5 | 195 | 3.22 ± 0.74 | 0.61 | 0.543 |
| 6–10 | 85 | 3.24 ± 0.71 | |||
| ≥11 | 60 | 3.33 ± 0.69 |
Variables correlations.
| SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | 0.89 | 0.72 | 1.00 | |||||||
| 2. Marital status | 0.58 | 0.50 | 0.64 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 3. Educational level | 0.77 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.27 | 1.00 | |||||
| 4. Tenure | 0.60 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.50 | 0.26 | 1.00 | ||||
| 5. SPQ | 3.24 | 0.72 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 1.00 | |||
| 6. GHQ-12 | 2.24 | 0.41 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 1.00 | ||
| 7. GSSE | 2.62 | 0.54 | 0.08 | 0.05 | −0.04 | 0.13 | −0.05 | −0.26 | 1.00 | |
| 8. SPS-6 | 2.70 | 0.80 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.32 | −0.17 | 1.00 |
N = 340; age: 0 = ≤25; 1 = 26–30; 2 = ≥31. Marital status: 0 = unmarried, 1 = married. Educational level: 0 = College and below, 1 = Bachelor and above. Tenure: 0 = ≤5; 1 = 6–10; 2 = ≥11. SPQ, Sickness Presenteeism Questionnaire; GHQ-12, General Health Questionnaire; GSES, General Self-Efficacy Scale; SPS-6, Stanford Presenteeism Scale.
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
Results of the HRA of the moderation effect of general self-efficacy.
| Variables | Productivity loss | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | |
| Control variables | |||
| Age | −0.17 | −0.19 | −0.18 |
| Marital status | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.17 |
| Educational level | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Tenure | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Main effect | |||
| Presenteeism | 0.15 | 0.18 | |
| General self-efficacy | −0.18 | −0.19 | |
| Moderation effect | |||
| Presenteeism × general self-efficacy | −0.18 | ||
| 2.69 | 5.17 | 6.19 | |
| Δ | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
N = 340, Δ.
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01;
p < 0.001.
Figure 2Simple slope analysis.