The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Presenteeism: A review and research directions
Abstract
Abstract Presenteeism, often defined as going to work ill, is a global phenomenon. In contrast to absenteeism, presenteeism has only recently gained attention as a major factor that affects organizational performance. This article shows that, to date, neither a uniform definition nor consistent measurement methods have been employed in the research on presenteeism. Although there have been several attempts at theory development, a comprehensive model that can explain why people choose presenteeism or absenteeism has yet to be established. Empirical studies have identified correlates of presenteeism, however, a clear distinction between causes and effects has yet to be made. Suggestions for future research cover the relevance, definition, and measurement of the phenomenon and offer a theory development framework that integrates Johns' (2010) prescriptions and refers to the decision-making process.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective
Bandura, A. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 · Cited by 15,510
The Job Demands‐Resources model: state of the art
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940710733115 · Cited by 12,996
(1964) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,439
Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta‐analytic review
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466601164939 · Cited by 9,970
Social Foundations of Thought and Action
Bandura, A. (2002) · The Health Psychology Reader · doi:10.4135/9781446221129.n6 · Cited by 9,902
Clarifying Achievement Goals and Their Impact.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541 · Cited by 1,434
Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda
Johns, G. (2010) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.630 · Cited by 1,285
Goetzel, R. Z., Long, S. R., Ozminkowski, R. J., Hawkins, K., Wang, S., & Lynch, W. (2004) · Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000121151.40413.bd · Cited by 1,259
Sick but yet at work. An empirical study of sickness presenteeism
Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. (2000) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.54.7.502 · Cited by 1,250
Cited by
Human factors in production and logistics systems of the future
Sgarbossa, F., Grosse, E. H., Neumann, W. P., Battini, D., & Glock, C. H. (2020) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2020.04.007 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Lohaus, D., & Habermann, W.
- Venue
- Human Resource Management Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-58
- ISSN
- 1053-4822 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2790757288
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 132
- FWCI
- 33.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Presenteeism: A review and research directions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.010
- The paper
- Lohaus, D., & Habermann, W. (2019). Presenteeism: A review and research directions. Human Resource Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
