Page 187 - Petelin, Ana, Nejc Šarabon, Boštjan Žvanut, eds. 2017. Zdravje delovno aktivne populacije ▪︎ Health of the Working-Age Population. Proceedings. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem/University of Primorska Press
P. 187
Discussion association between perceived stress, self-rated health, work productivity and stress management intervention 185
The results of this study demonstrate the association between higher frequen-
cy of perceived stress and worse self-rated health, more health problems in the
past month and higher level of sickness absenteeism and sickness presenteeism
in the past year. The findings are in line with previous research on the health-
and productivity-related consequences of high levels of perceived workplace
stress (i.e. Biron et al., 2006; MacGregor et al., 2008; Stansfeld and Candy,
2006). However, days of sickness presenteeism have not significantly contrib-
uted to the higher frequency of perceived stress in the regression model. This
could be partially explained by the recent meta-analysis of Miraglia and Johns
(2016) where various variables pertaining to job demands (constraints on ab-
senteeism, elevated job demands and felt stress etc.) and job and personal re-
sources (low support, low optimism etc.) were shown to be more important in
explaining presenteeism than absenteeism.
A quarter of the sample reported high frequency of perceived stress (Ta-
ble 2). This is somewhat similar to the results of the Fifth European Working
Conditions Survey, EWCS (EUROFOND, 2012) where 20% of workers report-
ed a poor mental well-being. Also, the results regarding the frequency of sick-
ness absenteeism and presenteeism are comparable with those obtained by the
most recent EWCS study (EUROFOND, 2017); 50% of the sample reported no
sickness absenteeism (compared to 60% reported in the EWCS), while 46% re-
ported no sickness presenteeism (45 % reported in the EWCS). It is interesting,
however, that more than half (62.3%) of the participants rated their health as
good or very good, while on average reported experiencing three health prob-
lems in the last month. A relatively low proportion of the employees rated their
health as poor or very poor (6.3%); this is slightly less than estimates obtained in
nationwide cross-sectional study by Farkas, Kragelj and Zaletel-Kragelj (2011;
9.6%). Yet, these employees are at highest risk for sickness absenteeism or pre-
senteeism and could benefit the most from interventions targeting their health.
Our results also indicated that higher frequency of perceived stress is as-
sociated with fewer implemented stress management interventions in the or-
ganisations. According to the research (Richardson and Rothstein, 2008), how-
ever, the effect of interventions most importantly depends on the intervention
type. No conclusions regarding that can be made for our study, as no further
details on the interventions were obtained. Still, similar to the findings of Rich-
ardson and Rothstein (2008) included organisations rarely reported implemen-
tation of organisational-level interventions such as changes to the way work
is organised, changes to working time arrangements etc. (Table 3). The high-
er number of implemented activities for managing work-related stress could,
however, reflect a higher awareness about employees’ mental health and well-
being, which could partially explain obtained association.
The main limitations of our study pertains the cross-sectional design and
non-representative sample as the employees’ participation was voluntary. Fur-
thermore, despite the satisfactory validity of a single-item measure of stress re-
The results of this study demonstrate the association between higher frequen-
cy of perceived stress and worse self-rated health, more health problems in the
past month and higher level of sickness absenteeism and sickness presenteeism
in the past year. The findings are in line with previous research on the health-
and productivity-related consequences of high levels of perceived workplace
stress (i.e. Biron et al., 2006; MacGregor et al., 2008; Stansfeld and Candy,
2006). However, days of sickness presenteeism have not significantly contrib-
uted to the higher frequency of perceived stress in the regression model. This
could be partially explained by the recent meta-analysis of Miraglia and Johns
(2016) where various variables pertaining to job demands (constraints on ab-
senteeism, elevated job demands and felt stress etc.) and job and personal re-
sources (low support, low optimism etc.) were shown to be more important in
explaining presenteeism than absenteeism.
A quarter of the sample reported high frequency of perceived stress (Ta-
ble 2). This is somewhat similar to the results of the Fifth European Working
Conditions Survey, EWCS (EUROFOND, 2012) where 20% of workers report-
ed a poor mental well-being. Also, the results regarding the frequency of sick-
ness absenteeism and presenteeism are comparable with those obtained by the
most recent EWCS study (EUROFOND, 2017); 50% of the sample reported no
sickness absenteeism (compared to 60% reported in the EWCS), while 46% re-
ported no sickness presenteeism (45 % reported in the EWCS). It is interesting,
however, that more than half (62.3%) of the participants rated their health as
good or very good, while on average reported experiencing three health prob-
lems in the last month. A relatively low proportion of the employees rated their
health as poor or very poor (6.3%); this is slightly less than estimates obtained in
nationwide cross-sectional study by Farkas, Kragelj and Zaletel-Kragelj (2011;
9.6%). Yet, these employees are at highest risk for sickness absenteeism or pre-
senteeism and could benefit the most from interventions targeting their health.
Our results also indicated that higher frequency of perceived stress is as-
sociated with fewer implemented stress management interventions in the or-
ganisations. According to the research (Richardson and Rothstein, 2008), how-
ever, the effect of interventions most importantly depends on the intervention
type. No conclusions regarding that can be made for our study, as no further
details on the interventions were obtained. Still, similar to the findings of Rich-
ardson and Rothstein (2008) included organisations rarely reported implemen-
tation of organisational-level interventions such as changes to the way work
is organised, changes to working time arrangements etc. (Table 3). The high-
er number of implemented activities for managing work-related stress could,
however, reflect a higher awareness about employees’ mental health and well-
being, which could partially explain obtained association.
The main limitations of our study pertains the cross-sectional design and
non-representative sample as the employees’ participation was voluntary. Fur-
thermore, despite the satisfactory validity of a single-item measure of stress re-
