Perceived Supervisor Support for Health Affects Presenteeism: A Cross-Sectional Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Participants
2.2. Assessment of Perceived Supervisor Support for Health
2.3. Assessment of Presenteeism
2.4. Assessment of Psychological Distress and Work Engagement
2.5. Assessment of Covariates
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Loeppke, R.; Hymel, P.A.; Lofland, J.H.; Pizzi, L.T.; Konicki, D.L.; Anstadt, G.W.; Baase, C.; Fortuna, J.; Scharf, T.; American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Health-related workplace productivity measurement: General and migraine-specific recommendations from the ACOEM Expert Panel. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2003, 45, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Loeppke, R.; Taitel, M.; Haufle, V.; Parry, T.; Kessler, R.C.; Jinnett, K. Health and productivity as a business strategy: A multiemployer study. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2009, 51, 411–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nagata, T.; Mori, K.; Ohtani, M.; Nagata, M.; Kajiki, S.; Fujino, Y.; Matsuda, S.; Loeppke, R. Total Health-Related Costs Due to Absenteeism, Presenteeism, and Medical and Pharmaceutical Expenses in Japanese Employers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 60, e273–e280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goetzel, R.Z.; Long, S.R.; Ozminkowski, R.J.; Hawkins, K.; Wang, S.; Lynch, W. Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004, 46, 398–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, W.N.; Pransky, G.; Conti, D.J.; Chen, C.Y.; Edington, D.W. The association of medical conditions and presenteeism. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004, 46, S38–S45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schultz, A.B.; Edington, D.W. Employee health and presenteeism: A systematic review. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2007, 17, 547–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skagen, K.; Collins, A.M. The consequences of sickness presenteeism on health and wellbeing over time: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2016, 161, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collins, J.J.; Baase, C.M.; Sharda, C.E.; Ozminkowski, R.J.; Nicholson, S.; Billotti, G.M.; Turpin, R.S.; Olson, M.; Berger, M.L. The assessment of chronic health conditions on work performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 47, 547–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordois, A.L.; Toth, P.P.; Quek, R.G.; Proudfoot, E.M.; Paoli, C.J.; Gandra, S.R. Productivity losses associated with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2016, 16, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michael, M.D.; Bálint, A.; Lovász, B.D.; Gulácsi, L.; Strbák, B.; Golovics, P.A.; Farkas, K.; Kürti, Z.; Szilágyi, B.K.; Mohás, A.; et al. Work disability and productivity loss in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases in Hungary in the era of biologics. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2014, 15, S121–S128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Linneberg, A.; Dam Petersen, K.; Hahn-Pedersen, J.; Hammerby, E.; Serup-Hansen, N.; Boxall, N. Burden of allergic respiratory disease: A systematic review. Clin. Mol. Allergy 2016, 14, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of the job demands—Resources model. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2003, 12, 393–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, E.R.; LePine, J.A.; Rich, B.L. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 834–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hakanen, J.J.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Ahola, K. The job demands-resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work Stress 2008, 22, 224–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergström, G.; Gustafsson, K.; Aboagye, E.; Marklund, S.; Aronsson, G.; Björklund, C.; Leineweber, C. A resourceful work environment moderates the relationship between presenteeism and health. A study using repeated measures in the swedish working population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aronsson, G.; Gustafsson, K. Sickness Presenteeism: Prevalence, Attendance-Pressure Factors, and an Outline of a Model for Research. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 47, 958–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mori, K.; Nagata, M.; Nagata, T. Work-Related Factors Affecting the Occurrence of Presenteeism—Recent Research Trends and Future Directions. J. UOEH 2021, 43, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived Organizational Support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kottke, J.L.; Sharafinski, C.E. Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and psychological Measurement. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1988, 48, 1075–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberger, R.; Stinglhamber, F.; Vandenberghe, C.; Sucharski, I.L.; Rhoades, L. Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Payne, J.; Cluff, L.; Lang, J.; Matson-Koffman, D.; Morgan-Lopez, A. Elements of a Workplace Culture of Health, Perceived Organizational Support for Health, and Lifestyle Risk. Am. J. Health Promot. 2018, 32, 1555–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shi, X.; Gordon, S. Organizational support versus supervisor support: The impact on hospitality managers’ psychological contract and work engagement. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Hannon, P.A.; Laing, S.S.; Kohn, M.J.; Clark, K.; Pritchard, S.; Harris, J.R. Perceived workplace health support is associated with employee productivity. Am. J. Health Promot. 2015, 29, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laing, S.S.; Jones, S.M.W. Anxiety and depression mediate the relationship between perceived workplace health support and presenteeism: A cross-sectional analysis. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 58, 1144–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Announcement of Organizations Selected under the 2021 Certified Health & Productivity Management Outstanding Organizations Recognition Program. Available online: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2021/0304_003.html (accessed on 22 February 2022).
- Brouwer, W.B.F.; Koopmanschap, M.A.; Rutten, F.F.H. Productivity losses without absence: Measurement validation and empirical evidence. Health Policy 1999, 48, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mori, T.; Nagata, T.; Nagata, M.; Fujimoto, K.; Fujino, Y.; Mori, K. Diabetes severity measured by treatment control status and number of anti-diabetic drugs affects presenteeism among workers with type 2 diabetes. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furukawa, T.A.; Kawakami, N.; Saitoh, M.; Ono, Y.; Nakane, Y.; Nakamura, Y.; Tachimori, H.; Iwata, N.; Uda, H.; Nakane, H.; et al. The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2008, 17, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimazu, A.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Kosugi, S.; Suzuki, A.; Nashiwa, H.; Kato, A.; Sakamoto, M.; Irimajiri, H.; Amano, S.; Hirohata, K.; et al. Work engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the utrecht work engagement scale. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 510–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salahian, A.; Oreizi, H.R.; Abedi, M.R.; Soltani, I. Co-Workers/supervisor Support and Burnout. Interdiscip. J. Contemp. Res. Bus. 2012, 4, 141–148. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, W.; Shan, G.; Guo, S.; Li, Y. Nurses’ Job Insecurity and Emotional Exhaustion: The Mediating Effect of Presenteeism and the Moderating Effect of Supervisor Support. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jose, G.; Mampilly, S.R. Relationships among perceived supervisor support, psychological empowerment and employee engagement in Indian workplaces. J. Workplace Behav. Health 2015, 30, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winarto, Y.; Chalidyanto, D. Perceived supervisor support and employee job satisfaction in private hospital. Eurasian J. Biosci. 2020, 14, 2793–2797. [Google Scholar]
- Gok, S.; Karatuna, I.; Karaca, P.O. The Role of Perceived Supervisor Support and Organizational Identification in Job Satisfaction. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 177, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiménez, P.; Bregenzer, A.; Kallus, K.W.; Fruhwirth, B.; Wagner-Hartl, V. Enhancing resources at the workplace with health-promoting leadership. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mattke, S.; Liu, H.; Caloyeras, J.; Huang, C.Y.; Van Busum, K.R.; Khodyakov, D.; Shier, V. Workplace wellness programs study: Final Report. Rand Health Q. 2013, 3, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Lier, L.M.; Breuer, C.; Dallmeyer, S. Organizational-level determinants of participation in workplace health promotion programs: A cross-company study. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sloan, R.P.; Gruman, J.C. Participation in Workplace Health Promotion Programs: The Contribution of Health and Organizational Factors. Health Educ. Behav. 1988, 15, 269–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmunds, S.; Hurst, L.; Harvey, K. Physical activity barriers in the workplace: An exploration of factors contributing to non-participation in a UK workplace physical activity intervention. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2013, 6, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Justesen, J.B.; Eskerod, P.; Christensen, J.R.; Sjøgaard, G. Implementing workplace health promotion—Role of middle managers. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2017, 10, 164–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Imboden, M.T.; Castle, P.H.; Johnson, S.S.; Jenkins, K.R.; Pitts, J.S.; Grossmeier, J.; Mangen, D.J.; Mason, S.; Noeldner, S.P. Development and Validity of a Workplace Health Promotion Best Practices Assessment. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 62, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smidt, M.N.; Jimmieson, N.L.; Bradley, L.M. Predicting employee participation in, and satisfaction with, wellness programs: The role of employee, supervisor, and organizational support. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2021, 63, 1005–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shanock, L.R.; Eisenberger, R. When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor aupport, perceived organizational support, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- The HERO Health and Well-Being Best Practices Scorecard in Collaboration with Mercer. 2018 Progress Report. Available online: https://hero-health.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/6009559-HB-2018-HERO-Scorecard-Progress-Report_final.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2022).
- Healthcare Industries Division, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Enhancing Health and Productivity Management. 2021. Available online: https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/mono_info_service/healthcare/downloadfiles/211006_kenkokeiei_gaiyo.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2022). (In Japanese)
Perceived Supervisor Support for Health | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Very High | High | Low | Very Low | |
Number of participants | 3125 | 8765 | 2589 | 679 |
Age, mean (SD) | 41.9 (11.1) | 43.4 (10.7) | 44.3 (10.3) | 43.5 (9.8) |
Gender, men | 2321 (74.3%) | 6340 (72.3%) | 1821 (70.3%) | 502 (73.9%) |
Occupation | ||||
Clerical | 792 (25.3%) | 2189 (25.0%) | 665 (25.7%) | 159 (23.4%) |
Sales | 1243 (39.8%) | 2384 (27.2%) | 504 (19.5%) | 102 (15.0%) |
Research & Development | 598 (19.1%) | 1919 (21.9%) | 523 (20.2%) | 148 (21.8%) |
Engineering | 214 (6.8%) | 1000 (11.4%) | 381 (14.7%) | 95 (14.0%) |
Production line | 145 (4.6%) | 724 (8.3%) | 309 (11.9%) | 105 (15.5%) |
Other | 133 (4.3%) | 549 (6.3%) | 207 (8.0%) | 70 (10.3%) |
K6 score (range: 0–24), mean (SD) | 3.0 (3.9) | 4.2 (4.3) | 6.0 (5.1) | 8.7 (6.4) |
Work engagement score (UWES-9) (range: 0–54), mean (SD) | 33.6 (9.2) | 27.2 (7.6) | 22.7 (8.2) | 18.3 (10.2) |
Quantity of work (range: 0–10), mean (SD) | 9.0 (1.8) | 8.8 (1.9) | 8.3 (2.1) | 7.7 (2.6) |
Quality of work (range: 0–10), mean (SD) | 9.0 (1.8) | 8.8 (1.9) | 8.2 (2.2) | 7.8 (2.5) |
Presenteeism score, mean (SD) | 15.4 (25.5) | 19.6 (27.2) | 27.4 (30.0) | 35.0 (33.0) |
Presenteeism (score of 44 or higher) | 506 (16.2%) | 1890 (21.6%) | 826 (31.9%) | 280 (41.2%) |
With Presenteeism | Without Presenteeism | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Number of participants | 3502 | 11,656 | |
Age, mean (SD) | 42.5 (10.3) | 43.5 (10.9) | <0.001 |
Gender, men | 2357 (67.3%) | 8627 (74.0%) | <0.001 |
Occupation | 0.001 | ||
Clerical | 913 (26.1%) | 2892 (24.8%) | |
Sales | 900 (25.7%) | 3333 (28.6%) | |
Research & Development | 728 (20.8%) | 2460 (21.1%) | |
Engineering | 431 (12.3%) | 1259 (10.8%) | |
Production line | 283 (8.1%) | 1000 (8.6%) | |
Other | 247 (7.1%) | 712 (6.1%) | |
K6 score (range: 0–24), mean (SD) | 7.0 (5.2) | 3.7 (4.2) | <0.001 |
Work engagement score (UWES-9) (range: 0–54), mean (SD) | 24.1 (8.8) | 28.3 (8.9) | <0.001 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | p-Value | aOR | 95% CI | p-Value | aOR | 95% CI | p-Value | aOR | 95% CI | p-Value | |
PSSH (continuous) | 1.54 | 1.46–1.62 | <0.001 | 1.56 | 1.48–1.64 | <0.001 | 1.25 | 1.18–1.32 | <0.001 | 1.14 | 1.08–1.21 | <0.001 |
K6 score (continuous) | 1.14 | 1.13–1.15 | <0.001 | 1.13 | 1.12–1.14 | <0.001 | ||||||
WE score (continuous) | 0.97 | 0.97–0.98 | <0.001 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | p-Value | aOR | 95% CI | p-Value | aOR | 95% CI | p-Value | aOR | 95% CI | p-Value | |
PSSH (categorical) | ||||||||||||
Very high | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | ||||||||
High | 1.39 | 1.24–1.55 | <0.001 | 1.41 | 1.26–1.57 | <0.001 | 1.22 | 1.09–1.36 | 0.001 | 1.08 | 0.96–1.21 | 0.206 |
Low | 2.31 | 2.03–2.62 | <0.001 | 2.36 | 2.07–2.69 | <0.001 | 1.64 | 1.43–1.88 | <0.001 | 1.34 | 1.16–1.55 | <0.001 |
Very low | 3.46 | 2.88–4.15 | <0.001 | 3.56 | 2.97–4.28 | <0.001 | 1.78 | 1.46–2.18 | <0.001 | 1.36 | 1.10–1.67 | 0.004 |
K6 score (continuous) | 1.14 | 1.13–1.15 | <0.001 | 1.13 | 1.12–1.14 | <0.001 | ||||||
WE score (continuous) | 0.97 | 0.97–0.98 | <0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mori, T.; Nagata, T.; Nagata, M.; Odagami, K.; Mori, K. Perceived Supervisor Support for Health Affects Presenteeism: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4340. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074340
Mori T, Nagata T, Nagata M, Odagami K, Mori K. Perceived Supervisor Support for Health Affects Presenteeism: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(7):4340. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074340
Chicago/Turabian StyleMori, Takahiro, Tomohisa Nagata, Masako Nagata, Kiminori Odagami, and Koji Mori. 2022. "Perceived Supervisor Support for Health Affects Presenteeism: A Cross-Sectional Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 7: 4340. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074340