Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Explaining socioeconomic differences in sickness absence: the Whitehall II Study.

Open access
North, F, Syme, S L, Feeney, A, Head, J, Shipley, M J, Marmot, M G·1993·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To describe and explain the socioeconomic gradient in sickness absence. DESIGN--Analysis of questionnaire and sickness absence data collected from the first phase of the Whitehall II study. Grade of employment was used as a measure of socioeconomic status. SETTING--20 civil service departments in London. SUBJECTS--6900 male and 3414 female civil servants aged 35-55 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Rates of short spells (< or = 7 days) and long spells (> 7 days) of sickness absence. RESULTS--A strong inverse relation between grade of employment and sickness absence was evident. Men in the lowest grade had rates of short and long spells of absence 6.1 (95% confidence interval 5.3 to 6.9) and 6.1 (4.8 to 7.9) times higher than those in the highest grade. For women the corresponding rate ratios were 3.0 (2.3 to 3.9) and 4.2 (2.5 to 6.8) respectively. Several risk factors were identified, including health related behaviours (smoking and frequent alcohol consumption), work characteristics (low levels of control, variety and use of skills, work pace, and support at work), low levels of job satisfaction, and adverse social circumstances outside work (financial difficulties and negative support). These risk factors accounted for about one third of the grade differences in sickness absence. CONCLUSION--Large grade differences in sickness absence parallel socioeconomic differences in morbidity and mortality found in other studies. Identified risk factors accounted for a small proportion of the grade differences in sickness absence. More accurate measurement of the risk factors may explain some of the remaining differences in sickness absence but other factors, as yet unrecognised, are likely to be important.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.306.6874.361

Cites

2 of 2 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

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 2 references

Cited by

See all 391

Metadata

Authors
North, F., Syme, S. L., Feeney, A., Head, J., Shipley, M. J., & Marmot, M. G.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1993-02-06
Volume
306
Issue
6874
Pages
361-366
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2002621109
Cited by
391
References
2
FWCI
31.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Explaining socioeconomic differences in sickness absence: the Whitehall II Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.306.6874.361
The paper
North, F., Syme, S. L., Feeney, A., Head, J., Shipley, M. J., & Marmot, M. G. (1993). Explaining socioeconomic differences in sickness absence: the Whitehall II Study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.6874.361

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.