Cited by 36Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-beingMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Association between presenteeism and health-related quality of life among Japanese adults with chronic lower back pain: a retrospective observational study

Open access
Tsuji, Toshinaga, Matsudaira, Ko, Sato, Hiroki, Vietri, Jeffrey, Jaffe, Dena H·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the relationship between presenteeism and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among Japanese adults with chronic lower back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Data were collected via a self-administered online survey of the Japanese adult general population. PARTICIPANTS: The present study used 2014 Japan National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data (n=30 000). Specifically, data were included from NHWS respondents who self-reported being employed in the past week and having experienced LBP in the past month, with these symptoms lasting for at least 3 months (n=239). 84 (35.1%) participants in this study were female. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Presenteeism and HRQoL were measured using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-General Health (categorical (none: 0%, low: 10%-20%, high: ≥30%) and continuous) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, respectively. Covariates included patient demographics, health characteristics, pain characteristics and depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire). RESULTS: Presenteeism was reported by 77.4% of respondents. High (vs no) presenteeism related to more severe pain in the prior week (4.9±2.2 vs 3.6±2.1, p=0.001) and currently (5.1±2.1 vs 3.9±3.9, p=0.007), more pain sites (1.9±1.6 vs 1.1±1.4, p=0.004) and greater depression severity (7.5±6.5 vs 3.6±3.6, p<0.001). Adjusting for covariates, high (vs no) presenteeism related to lower mental and physical HRQoL. For low versus no presenteeism, significant HRQoL differences were observed in general health (43.0, 95% CI 40.3 to 45.6 vs 46.9, 95% CI 43.9 to 49.8, p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents experienced presenteeism. Those with high or low presenteeism had poorer HRQoL than respondents with no presenteeism. Monitoring presenteeism rates may help identify workers with an unmet need for better CLBP-related pain management.

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/bmjopen-2017-021160

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Risk of bias was assessed independently by two authors using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials.

    “Risk of bias was assessed independently by 2 authors (A.R.C. and P.L.G.) using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials.40”

    From Productivity outcomes from chronic pain management interventions in the working age population; a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

    The citation appears to identify the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, but this source is not that tool. Its Abstract (Design) identifies it as a retrospective, cross-sectional study, and its Methods (Statistical methods) describe analyses of presenteeism and health-related quality of life, not an assessment of randomized trials. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsuji, T., Matsudaira, K., Sato, H., Vietri, J., & Jaffe, D. H.
Affiliations
  • Shionogi (Japan) (JP)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Kantar Health (United States) (US)
  • Health Outcomes Practice, Kantar Health, Tel Aviv, Israel
Corresponding author
Jaffe, Dena H
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-06
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
e021160
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809748811
Cited by
35
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Shionogi Ltd
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
presenteeism, health-related quality of life, chronic low back pain, labor productivity, depression, pain intensity, pain sites, mental health, physical health, Japanese adults
MeSH terms
Presenteeism, Adolescent, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Status, Humans, Japan, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Regression Analysis, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Comorbidity, Multivariate Analysis, Low Back Pain, Cost of Illness, Young Adult, Self Report, Chronic Pain

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