Table 1
Descriptive Statistics (M, SD, 95% CI) for Presenteeism and Independent Variables Shown for Total Country Samples. Independent Sample t-tests Performed for the Difference between Countries.
| Variable | Sweden | Norway | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | 95% CI | M | SD | 95% CI | ||
| Presenteeism | 2.81 | 1.17 | 2.73 to 2.88 | 3.10 | 1.07 | 3.01 to 3.20 | <.001 |
| Role conflict | 2.82 | 0.81 | 2.77 to 2.87 | 2.64 | 0.75 | 2.58 to 2.71 | <.001 |
| W-F conflict | 2.36 | 0.68 | 2.32 to 2.41 | 2.24 | 0.64 | 2.19 to 2.30 | <.001 |
| % research | 11.66 | 14.27 | 10.74 to 12.59 | 12.82 | 19.79 | 11.04 to 14.59 | .157 |
| % patient care | 53.39 | 23.6 | 51.86 to 54.93 | 54.65 | 26.54 | 52.26 to 57.03 | .151 |
| Influence methods | 3.40 | 0.95 | 3.34 to 3.46 | 3.49 | 0.95 | 3.40 to 3.57 | .014 |
| Influence amount | 2.56 | 0.99 | 2.50 to 2.63 | 2.59 | 1.00 | 2.50 to 2.68 | .284 |
| Control pace | 2.68 | 0.94 | 2.62 to 2.75 | 2.63 | 0.90 | 2.55 to 2.71 | .434 |
| Organizational care | 2.75 | 0.90 | 2.69 to 2.81 | 2.81 | 0.87 | 2.73 to 2.89 | .045 |
[i] Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval; W-F conflict = work-to-family conflict.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics (M, SD, 95% CI) for Presenteeism and Independent Variables Shown for Subsamples of Good and Poor Mental Health Within Country. Independent Sample t-tests Performed for the Difference between Subsamples of Good and Poor Mental Health within Country.
| Variable | SweGMH (n = 768) | SwePMH (n = 279) | p | NorGMH (n = 368) | NorPMH (n = 174) | p | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | 95%CI | M | SD | 95%CI | M | SD | 95%CI | M | SD | 95%CI | |||
| Presenteeism | 2.71 | 1.15 | 2.63 to 2.79 | 3.04 | 1.22 | 2.90 to 3.18 | <.001 | 2.97 | 1.04 | 2.86 to 3.07 | 3.36 | 1.06 | 3.20 to 3.52 | <.001 |
| Role conflict | 2.66 | 0.77 | 2.61 to 2.72 | 3.20 | 0.78 | 3.11 to 3.29 | <.001 | 2.54 | 0.72 | 2.47 to 2.61 | 2.78 | 0.83 | 2.65 to 2.90 | <.001 |
| W-F conflict | 2.20 | 0.62 | 2.15 to 2.24 | 2.81 | 0.65 | 2.73 to 2.89 | <.001 | 2.10 | 0.60 | 2.04 to 2.17 | 2.47 | 0.64 | 2.37 to 2.57 | <.001 |
| % research | 12.0 | 14.5 | 10.9 to 13.1 | 11.0 | 13.9 | 9.23 to 12.8 | .384 | 14.3 | 21.0 | 11.9 16.6 | 12.2 | 16.6 | 7.87 to 13.5 | .066 |
| % patient care | 54.2 | 24.3 | 52.5 to 56.0 | 55.4 | 22.2 | 52.7 to 58.0 | .493 | 56.1 | 25.7 | 53.4 to 58.7 | 57.1 | 28.0 | 52.9 to 61.3 | .667 |
| Influence methods | 3.47 | 0.94 | 3.40 to 3.53 | 3.12 | 0.97 | 3.01 to 3.24 | <.001 | 3.56 | 0.93 | 3.46 to 3.66 | 3.37 | 0.98 | 3.23 to 3.52 | .033 |
| Influence amount | 2.72 | 0.99 | 2.65 to 2.79 | 2.14 | 0.93 | 2.03 to 2.25 | <.001 | 2.70 | 1.01 | 2.60 to 2.80 | 2.45 | 1.00 | 2.30 to 2.60 | .008 |
| Control pace | 2.81 | 0.94 | 2.75 to 2.88 | 2.31 | 0.85 | 2.21 to 2.41 | <.001 | 2.72 | 0.90 | 2.63 to 2.81 | 2.48 | 0.87 | 2.35 to 2.61 | .003 |
| Organizational care | 2.89 | 0.84 | 2.83 to2.95 | 2.36 | 0.93 | 2.25 to 2.47 | <.001 | 2.95 | 0.87 | 2.86 to 3.04 | 2.64 | 0.87 | 2.51 to 2.77 | <.001 |
[i] Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval; W-F conflict = work-to-family conflict.
Table 3
Correlations between Variables for the Swedish Subsamples (Pearson’s r). SweGMH (n = 768) Under the Diagonal; SwePMH (n = 279) Above.
| Variable | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 11. | 12. | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender (women) | — | –.06 | –.08 | –.05 | .06 | .01 | .13 | –.11 | –.11 | –.10 | –.15 | .30 | * | |||||||||||
| 2. Age | –.12 | * | — | .60 | * | –.02 | –.02 | .16 | * | .16 | * | .08 | .02 | .11 | –.02 | .15 | ||||||||
| 3. Position (seniors) | –.14 | * | .64 | * | — | .09 | –.01 | .12 | .07 | .15 | –.01 | .07 | .02 | .10 | ||||||||||
| 4. Research | –.08 | .09 | .10 | — | –.24 | * | –.11 | .01 | .08 | .12 | .12 | .14 | –.12 | |||||||||||
| 5. Patient care | –.06 | –.16 | * | –.08 | –.32 | * | — | –.05 | .01 | –.08 | –.15 | –.23 | * | –.19 | * | .02 | ||||||||
| 6. Role conflict | .01 | .03 | .05 | –.01 | –.15 | * | — | .31 | * | –.22 | * | –.20 | * | –.20 | * | –.32 | * | .27 | * | |||||
| 7. Work to family conflict | .11 | * | .06 | .03 | –.01 | –.01 | .26 | * | — | –.17 | * | –.22 | * | –.20 | * | –.27 | * | .20 | * | |||||
| 8. Influence methods | –.10 | * | .19 | * | .18 | * | .05 | –.08 | –.16 | * | –.14 | * | — | .29 | * | .32 | * | .22 | * | –.11 | ||||
| 9. Influence amount | –.15 | * | .17 | * | .16 | * | .14 | * | –.12 | * | –.17 | * | –.18 | * | .35 | * | — | .40 | * | .31 | * | –.17 | * | |
| 10. Control work pace | –.16 | * | .30 | * | .16 | * | .09 | –.28 | * | –.13 | * | –.14 | * | .26 | * | .51 | * | — | .35 | * | –.18 | * | ||
| 11. Organizational care | –.11 | * | .07 | .09 | .01 | –.08 | –.26 | * | –.23 | * | .30 | * | .34 | * | .28 | * | — | –.27 | * | |||||
| 12. Presenteeism | .15 | * | .02 | –.02 | .00 | –.03 | .21 | * | .22 | * | –.04 | –.06 | –.18 | * | –.15 | * | — | |||||||
[i] * p < .01.
Table 4
Correlations between Variables for the Norwegian Subsamples (Pearson’s r). NorGMH (n = 368) Under the Diagonal; NorPMH (n = 174) Above.
| Variable | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 11. | 12. | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender (women) | — | –.12 | –.06 | .05 | .02 | –.18 | .02 | .04 | –.18 | –.11 | .02 | .14 | ||||||||||||
| 2. Age | –.20 | * | — | .65 | * | .18 | –.07 | –.04 | –.04 | .05 | –.04 | .12 | –.04 | –.17 | ||||||||||
| 3. Position (seniors) | –.19 | * | .71 | * | — | .04 | –.06 | –.03 | .06 | .11 | –.07 | .11 | –.04 | –.06 | ||||||||||
| 4. Research | –.01 | .02 | .09 | — | –.53 | * | –.02 | –.05 | .05 | –.04 | .08 | .02 | .09 | |||||||||||
| 5. Patient care | .05 | –.12 | –.15 | * | –.53 | * | — | –.09 | –.09 | .02 | –.06 | –.28 | * | –.10 | –.03 | |||||||||
| 6. Role conflict | .13 | –.00 | .03 | –.10 | –.03 | — | .26 | * | –.30 | * | –.19 | –.13 | –.29 | * | .10 | |||||||||
| 7. Work to family conflict | .08 | .02 | .03 | –.10 | .02 | .32 | * | — | –.24 | * | –.32 | * | –.17 | –.28 | * | .30 | * | |||||||
| 8. Influence methods | –.13 | .08 | .16 | * | –.05 | .03 | –.28 | * | –.14 | * | — | .19 | .17 | .19 | –.06 | |||||||||
| 9. Influence amount | –.10 | .17 | * | .17 | * | .19 | * | –.23 | * | –.30 | * | –.21 | * | .24 | * | — | .53 | * | .45 | * | –.28 | * | ||
| 10. Control work pace | –.18 | * | .17 | * | .16 | * | .30 | * | –.36 | * | –.22 | * | –.15 | * | .17 | * | .57 | * | — | .44 | * | –.29 | * | |
| 11. Organizational care | –.03 | .19 | * | .14 | –.04 | –.08 | –.26 | * | –.20 | * | .26 | * | .38 | * | .37 | * | — | –.34 | * | |||||
| 12. Presenteeism | .14 | * | –.05 | –.02 | .12 | –.03 | .17 | * | .27 | * | .01 | –.14 | * | –.19 | * | –.15 | * | — | ||||||
[i] * p < .01.
Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Enter Method; Summary for Variables Predicting Sickness Presenteeism in Swedish Sample of Good and Poor Mental Health.
| Variable | SweGMH (n =611) | SwePMH (n =208) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | t | p | R2 | ΔR2 | β | t | p | R2 | ΔR2 | |
| Step 1 | .04 | .12 | ||||||||
| Gender (women) | .20 | 4.86 | .00 | .32 | 4.91 | .00 | ||||
| Age | .08 | 1.49 | .14 | .11 | 1.34 | .18 | ||||
| Position (seniors) | –.03 | –0.54 | .59 | .04 | 0.50 | .62 | ||||
| Step 2 | .11 | .07 | .20 | .08 | ||||||
| Gender (women) | .17 | 4.20 | .00 | .30 | 4.62 | .00 | ||||
| Age | .05 | 1.04 | .30 | .06 | 0.69 | .49 | ||||
| Position (seniors) | –.03 | –0.64 | .52 | .04 | 0.49 | .62 | ||||
| Research tasks | .00 | 0.05 | .96 | –.08 | –1.20 | .23 | ||||
| Patient care | –.01 | –0.21 | .84 | –.02 | –0.27 | .78 | ||||
| Role conflict | .15 | 3.74 | .00 | .23 | 3.40 | .00 | ||||
| Work to family conflict | .19 | 4.63 | .00 | .09 | 1.31 | .19 | ||||
| Step 3 | .13 | .02 | .23 | .03 | ||||||
| Gender (women) | .15 | 3.81 | .00 | .27 | 4.15 | .00 | ||||
| Age | .08 | 1.60 | .11 | .08 | 1.05 | .30 | ||||
| Position (seniors) | –.05 | –0.90 | .37 | .04 | 0.45 | .65 | ||||
| Research tasks | –.01 | –0.33 | .74 | –.07 | –1.02 | .31 | ||||
| Patient care | –.04 | –0.95 | .34 | –.06 | –0.90 | .37 | ||||
| Role conflict | .14 | 3.33 | .00 | .19 | 2.67 | .01 | ||||
| Work family conflict | .18 | 4.46 | .00 | .05 | 0.69 | .49 | ||||
| Influence methods | .02 | 0.53 | .60 | .02 | 0.24 | .81 | ||||
| Influence amount | .10 | 2.17 | .03 | –.04 | –0.57 | .57 | ||||
| Control work pace | –.15 | –3.12 | .00 | –.10 | –1.36 | .18 | ||||
| Organizational care | –.04 | –0.85 | .40 | –.12 | –1.60 | .11 | ||||
[i] Note. Significant β’s are in bold face (p < .05). SweGMH: F change (4,603) = 12.31, p < .001 in Step 2; F change (4,599) = 2.97, p < .05 in Step 3. Durbin Watson = 1.97. SwePMH: F change (4,200) = 5.25, p < .001 in Step 2; F change (4,196) = 1.79, p = ns. in Step 3. Durbin Watson = 2.14.
Table 6
Hierarchical Regression Analysis with Enter Method; Summary for Variables Predicting Sickness Presenteeism in Norwegian Sample of Good and Poor Mental Health.
| Variable | NorGMH (n = 301) | NorPMH (n = 157) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | t | p | R2 | ΔR2 | β | t | p | R2 | ΔR2 | |
| Step 1 | .02 | .04 | ||||||||
| Gender (women) | .13 | 2.20 | .03 | .10 | 1.24 | .22 | ||||
| Age | –.01 | –0.08 | .93 | –.20 | –1.96 | .05 | ||||
| Position (seniors) | .04 | 0.54 | .59 | .10 | 0.97 | .33 | ||||
| Step 2 | .10 | .08 | .05 | .11 | ||||||
| Gender (women) | .12 | 2.03 | .04 | .10 | 1.31 | .19 | ||||
| Age | .01 | 0.07 | .94 | –.20 | –2.01 | .05 | ||||
| Position (seniors) | .01 | 0.14 | .89 | .08 | 0.81 | .42 | ||||
| Research tasks | .12 | 1.88 | .06 | .17 | 1.87 | .06 | ||||
| Patient care | .00 | 0.02 | .99 | .08 | 0.88 | .38 | ||||
| Role conflict | .10 | 1.70 | .09 | .05 | 0.63 | .53 | ||||
| Work to family conflict | .23 | 3.96 | .00 | .30 | 3.74 | .00 | ||||
| Step 3 | .15 | .05 | .24 | .09 | ||||||
| Gender (women) | .10 | 1.74 | .08 | .07 | 0.89 | .37 | ||||
| Age | .04 | 0.51 | .61 | –.22 | –2.28 | .02 | ||||
| Position (seniors) | –.01 | –0.19 | .85 | .07 | 0.76 | .45 | ||||
| Research tasks | .15 | 2.26 | .02 | .14 | 1.50 | .13 | ||||
| Patient care | –.07 | –1.02 | .31 | .00 | –0.01 | .99 | ||||
| Role conflict | .09 | 1.49 | .14 | –.02 | –0.27 | .79 | ||||
| Work to family conflict | .22 | 3.82 | .00 | .21 | 2.58 | .01 | ||||
| Influence methods | .13 | 2.19 | .03 | .06 | 0.72 | .47 | ||||
| Influence amount | –.04 | –0.52 | .60 | –.09 | –0.96 | .34 | ||||
| Control work pace | –.18 | –2.54 | .01 | –.08 | –0.81 | .42 | ||||
| Organizational care | –.03 | –0.50 | .62 | –.23 | –2.57 | .01 | ||||
[i] Note. Significant β’s are in bold face (p < .05). NorGMH: F change (4,293) = 6.76, p < .001 in Step 2; F change (4,289) = 3.99, p < .01 in Step 3. Durbin Watson = 2.06. NorPMH: F change (4,149) = 4.81, p < .001 in Step 2; F change (4,145) = 4.27, p < .05 in Step 3. Durbin Watson = 1.76.