CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 390Workplace Health and Well-beingMental Health Treatment and AccessHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global patterns of workplace productivity for people with depression: absenteeism and presenteeism costs across eight diverse countries

Open access
Evans-Lacko, S., Knapp, M.·2016·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
DOI 10.1007/s00127-016-1278-4PMC PMC5101346
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE: Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Research suggests that by far, the greatest contributor to the overall economic impact of depression is loss in productivity; however, there is very little research on the costs of depression outside of Western high-income countries. Thus, this study examines the impact of depression on workplace productivity across eight diverse countries. METHODS: We estimated the extent and costs of depression-related absenteeism and presenteeism in the workplace across eight countries: Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and the USA. We also examined the individual, workplace, and societal factors associated with lower productivity. RESULTS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of depression on workplace productivity across a diverse set of countries, in terms of both culture and GDP. Mean annual per person costs for absenteeism were lowest in South Korea at $181 and highest in Japan ($2674). Mean presenteeism costs per person were highest in the USA ($5524) and Brazil ($5788). Costs associated with presenteeism tended to be 5-10 times higher than those associated with absenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the impact of depression in the workplace is considerable across all countries, both in absolute monetary terms and in relation to proportion of country GDP. Overall, depression is an issue deserving much greater attention, regardless of a country's economic development, national income or culture.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00127-016-1278-4

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kessler RC, Ames M, Hymel P a., Loeppke R, McKenas DK, Richling DE et al (2004) Using the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ) to Evaluate the Indirect Workplace Costs of Illness. J Occup Environ Med 46:S23–S37. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000126683.75201.c5 · DOI
  2. Kadel, R, Knapp, M MD. Economic evaluation of workplace-initiated interventions for common mental disorders: a systematic review of intervention studies. Under Rev

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 390

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Evans-Lacko, S., & Knapp, M.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Evans-Lacko, S.
  • Knapp, M.
ORCID
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-09-26
Volume
51
Issue
11
Pages
1525-1537
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
DOI
10.1007/s00127-016-1278-4
PMC
PMC5101346
OpenAlex
W2512748481
Cited by
390
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
45.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
H. Lundbeck A/S
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
depression, labor productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism, cross-national comparison, disability, productivity loss, low- and middle-income countries
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Presenteeism, Adult, Brazil, Canada, China, Costs and Cost Analysis, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Efficiency, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Japan, Male, Mexico, Middle Aged, South Africa, Workplace, Republic of Korea

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review