Observational study quantifies daily presenteeism in Japanese workers, linking it to retrospective WHO-HPQ scores, suggesting measurement improvement.
OBJECTIVES: Presenteeism is commonly assessed using retrospective instruments such as the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (WHO-HPQ); however, how daily presenteeism assessed using experience sampling relates to these standard measures remains unclear. This study quantified within-person variability in daily presenteeism assessed using experience sampling methods (ESM) among Japanese workers, while also examining its convergence with retrospective WHO-HPQ presenteeism. METHODS: This observational study enrolled 94 white-collar employees; 93 were included in the final analysis after exclusion of one participant because of missing data. Participants completed daily work performance assessments on 19 weekdays using a mobile-based ESM approach. Aggregated daily presenteeism scores were compared with retrospective WHO-HPQ presenteeism scores assessed over the preceding four weeks. Convergence was evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, and agreement was examined using Bland-Altman analysis. Within-person variability was quantified using the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Mean daily absolute presenteeism scores were strongly correlated with retrospective WHO-HPQ presenteeism scores (Spearman's rs = .783, P < .001). Bland-Altman analysis showed minimal systematic differences on average, despite substantial individual-level variability. Daily presenteeism exhibited substantial variability, with a CV of 42.2% (95% confidence interval: 36.7-47.6) and an ICC of .431. CONCLUSIONS: Daily presenteeism converged with retrospective WHO-HPQ presenteeism while capturing substantial within-person variability that is not fully reflected in retrospective assessments. These findings support interpreting presenteeism as a dynamically fluctuating state and highlight the importance of selecting measures with appropriate temporal resolution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dobashi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: