Abstract
Background
Work–family conflicts (WFC) have been associated with poor mental health, poor self-rated health and sickness absence. However, studies on short sickness absence are lacking and more information is needed also about long sickness absence regarding the direction of WFC, and potential explaining factors particularly among young and early middle-aged employees.
Methods
The Helsinki Health Study baseline survey (2017) among 19- to 39-year-old municipal employees (N = 3683, 80% women, response rate 51.5%) was linked to employer’s sickness absence data. The associations of work-to-family conflicts (WTFC) and family-to-work conflicts (FTWC) with short (1–7 days) and long (over 7 days) sickness absence were analyzed using negative binomial regression analysis. Covariates were age, gender, family-related factors and work-related factors. Stratified analyses by occupational class were performed. The results are presented as rate ratios and their 95% confidence intervals.
Results
High WTFC were associated with short (1.25, 1.12–1.40) and long (1.37, 1.11-1.70) sickness absence. High FTWC were also associated with short (1.12, 1.03–1.22) and long (1.24, 1.06–1.45) sickness absence. Adjustment for family-related factors strengthened the associations, whereas adjustment for work-related factors abolished the associations between WTFC and sickness absence. Associations between WFC and sickness absence were observed among two lowest occupational classes only.
Conclusion
WFC are associated with both short and long sickness absence. Work-related factors including the quality of supervisory work and shift work play a role in the association. Intervention studies could determine if improvements in combining work and family life lead to a reduction in sickness absence.
Introduction
Work and family constitute key domains of life for many working-age adults. When demands between paid work and family are incompatible, work–family conflicts (WFC) occur.1 The conflicts are referred to as work-to-family conflicts (WTFC) if they force an employee to place work demands above the needs of family or if situations at work are brought into family life. In turn, family-to-work conflicts (FTWC) mean that family life negatively affects work performance. A study among 23 European countries reported that 19% of mothers and 18% of fathers experienced WFC.2 According to a growing body of literature, WFC are associated with health outcomes such as sleep problems,3 self-rated health4 and mental health.4
Previous research also suggests that WFC are associated with sickness absence.5–9 A recent systematic review found eight prospective studies on WFC and sickness absence.5 The studies were too heterogenous for meta-analyses, and the findings were thus presented narratively.5 A strong level of evidence was found for the association between WTFC and sickness absence and a moderate level of evidence for the association between FTWC and sickness absence.5 More recent Scandinavian studies focusing on WTFC and long-term sickness absence both found an association.7,8 Our previous study on Finnish older municipal employees examined long sickness absence due to mental disorders and found associations for both WTFC and FTWC.9 Similarly, an earlier Swedish study reported an association between WFC and sickness absence due to stress-related and other mental diagnoses among women.6 Sickness absence is granted when an employee is temporarily unable to work due to illness. Thus, particularly long sickness absence reflects more severe illness,10 whereas short sickness absence typically reflects minor illness like common cold and aches.11,12 In addition to health, various other factors such as socioeconomic position13 and work-related factors14 contribute to sickness absence. The association between WFC and sickness absence might reflect poor health due to WFC.3,8 Additionally, especially short sickness absence might serve as a coping strategy15 when balancing the demands of work and family life. Women have more sickness absence than men7,16 and WFC might contribute to the finding as women often bear the main responsibility for home and family matters.17
Previous research leaves some gaps regarding WFC and sickness absence. First, studies have focused on long-term sickness absence or not specified the length of sickness absence. To our best knowledge, short sickness absence has not been previously examined. Second, concerning also long-term sickness absence studies examining FTWC are rare and show inconsistent results. However, examining the direction of WFC is essential because WTFC and FTWC have different antecedents.18,19 Third, studies focusing on young and early midlife employees are rare. The determinants of sickness absence differ according to age, with mental health problems being particularly important among younger employees.20 Moreover, young and early midlife employees typically have young children. Fourth, the results concerning gender differences in the associations between WFC and sickness absence remain inconclusive.5
This study aims to expand and specify previous research about the associations between WFC and sickness absence. We firstly aim to examine whether WTFC and FTWC are associated with short (under 7 days) and long (more than 7 days) sickness absence among young and early midlife employees. Secondly, we aim to find out whether living with a partner, the number of underage children living at home, occupational class and work-related factors contribute to the associations. An additional aim is to examine whether WFC contribute to the gender differences in sickness absence.
Methods
This study is part of the Helsinki Health Study examining the health and well-being of employees of the City of Helsinki.21 The City of Helsinki is the largest employer in Finland including both manual and non-manual occupations from various employment sectors.22
The survey data were collected in autumn 2017 among 19- to 39-year-old employees of the City of Helsinki who were born in 1978 or later, who had a work contract of at least 50% of regular work hours per week and whose employment contract had lasted a minimum of 4 months before the data collection. The data were collected primarily via online and mailed questionnaires. In addition, telephone interviews (n = 787) were made among those who did not otherwise respond. The majority of the participants (80%) were women corresponding to the gender distribution of the City of Helsinki and the Finnish public sector. The target population consisted of 11 459 employees of whom 5898 participated yielding a response rate of 51.5%. The non-response analyses showed that employees in higher socioeconomic positions and with less long-term sickness absence were somewhat more likely to participate. Overall, the sample represented the target population fairly well.21 The questionnaire data were linked to the employer’s personnel register for those participants who consented to the linkage (n = 4864, 82% of participants). Sickness absences were followed from the date of returning the questionnaire until the end of March 2020. The mean follow-up time was 2.1 years (SD 0.67 years). This cut-point was chosen because of the onset of COVID-19 pandemic which changed the employer’s sickness absence practices. Telephone interview lacked questions on WFC and thus 651 participants were excluded. Additionally, 52 participants had no working days after the onset of follow-up of sickness absence, 305 participants reported not having a family and 194 participants lacked data on covariates and were excluded. The dropout partially overlapped, and the final data consisted of 3683 employees of whom 80% were women. The distributions of age, gender and occupational class of the respondents to the baseline survey and the final analytical sample are presented in Supplementary table S1. The final sample included somewhat less routine non-manual workers and manual workers than all respondents. The analyses of WTFC included 3656 participants and of FTWC 3651 participants as 27 participants had not answered questions on WTFC and 32 on FTWC.
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, and permissions were granted by the City of Helsinki authorities. Access to link the register data with the survey data was granted by the register data holders. Linking of participants’ survey responses to register data is based on their informed consent.
Work–family conflicts
WFC were inquired by a questionnaire adapted from the National Study of Midlife Development in the USA.23 To assess WTFC, the participants were asked to respond to four items following the question: to what extent do your job responsibilities interfere with your family life? The items were: ‘your job reduces the amount of time you can spend with the family’, ‘problems at work make you irritable at home’, ‘your work involves a lot of travel away from home’ and ‘your job takes so much energy you do not feel up to doing things that need attention at home’. To assess FTWC, the participants were asked to respond to four items following the question: to what extent do your family life and family responsibilities interfere with your performance on your job in any of the following ways? The items were: ‘family matters reduce the time you can devote to your job’, ‘family worries or problems distract you from your work’, ‘family activities stop you getting the amount of sleep you need to perform well at work’ and ‘family obligations reduce the time you need to relax or to be by yourself’. Each question had four response alternatives: ‘not at all’, ‘to some degree’, ‘a lot’ and ‘I do not have a family’. Each item was scored from 1 to 3, with a higher score indicating greater conflicts. The items concerning WTFC and FTWC were separately summed and divided into three categories: ‘no conflicts’, ‘some conflicts’ and ‘high conflicts’. The cut-points for WTFC were as follows: no conflicts (score 1–4), some conflicts (scores 5–7) and high conflicts (scores 8–12), and for FTWC: no conflicts (score 4), some conflicts (scores 5–6) and high conflicts (scores 7–12). The Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.58 for WTFC and 0.76 for FTWC. FTWC were rarer than WTFC and thus different cut-points were used. Similar cut-points have been used previously.24
Sickness absence
Data on sickness absence were derived from the personnel register of the City of Helsinki. The data included the start and end dates of the sickness absence spells. Consecutive and overlapping sickness absence spells were merged. Absence days due to other reasons such as taking care of an ill child were excluded. In Finland, the employee can take salaried temporary care leave (maximum of 4 working days) when a child under 10 years falls ill to stay home and take care of the child.25 Sickness absence spells were divided into short and long sickness absence spells. Short sickness absence spells lasted 7 days or less and long sickness absence spells over 7 days. The categorization was based on the employer’s requirement of a medical certificate from a doctor of sickness absence spells exceeding seven days.
Background variables
Age, gender (women vs. men) and living with a spouse or a partner (yes vs. no) were used as covariates. The number of under 18-year-old children living at home was divided into three categories: ‘One’, ‘Two or more’ and ‘None’. Single-item questions concerning mentally and physically strenuous work included four response alternatives ranging from ‘very light’ to ‘very heavy’. Mentally strenuous and physically strenuous work were each dichotomized into ‘heavy’ and ‘not heavy’ work. Weekly working hours included three categories: ‘30 h or less’, ‘30–40 h’ and ‘over 40 h’. Shift work was divided into three categories by combining the categories ‘regular daytime work’ and ‘daytime work with night-time on call shifts’, the categories ‘shift work without nightshifts’ and ‘other irregular worktime’ and the categories ‘regular night work’ and ‘shift work including night shifts’. A four-item question picturing supervisor work was formed. The categories were: ‘Not satisfied’, ‘Intermediate’ and ‘Satisfied’. Socioeconomic position was measured by occupational class and divided into three categories: ‘Managers and professionals’, ‘Semi-professionals’ and ‘Routine non-manual workers and manual workers’.
Statistical methods
The rates of short and long sickness absence spells per 100 person-years were calculated for WTFC and FTWC. The associations between WFC and sickness absence were analyzed using negative binomial regression analysis. Follow-up time was included as an offset variable to consider different follow-up times between the participants. The numbers of short and long sickness absence spells during the follow-up were the outcome measures. The results are presented as rate ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Firstly, we fitted base models adjusted for age and gender. Secondly, living with a partner and the number of underage children living at home; and finally, physical and mental strenuousness of work, supervisor work, working hours and shift work were added to the base models by removing the previous covariate before adding a new one. Occupational class was initially added as a covariate. The adjustment had no effect but there were differences in stratified analyses.
The associations between WFC and sickness absence were also analyzed separately among women and men. Lack of statistical power somewhat hindered the analyses. The differences were minor, but the association between WTFC and long sickness absence was particularly strong among men. Women and men were pooled in the analyses.
In addition, the associations between gender and sickness absence were analyzed. The base model was adjusted for age and then WTFC and FTWC and finally both types of WFC were added to the base model.
Results
‘Your job reduces the amount of time you can spend with the family’ was the most commonly reported item concerning WTFC, and ‘family obligations reduce the time you need to relax or to be by yourself’ was the most commonly reported item concerning FTWC (Supplementary table S2). Short sickness absence spells were more common than long sickness absence spells (table 1). The number of sickness absence spells per 100 person-years varied by WFC with employees reporting high conflicts having more sickness absence spells compared with others. The distributions of covariates by WFC are presented in Supplementary table S3.
Table 1.
Characteristics of the data by work–family conflicts
| n | % | Short sickness absence spells (n) | Long sickness absence spells (n) | Short sickness absence spells/100 person-years (n) | Long sickness absence spells/100 person-years (n) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Work-to-family conflicts | ||||||
| No conflicts | 455 | 12 | 2218 | 200 | 223 | 20 |
| Some conflicts | 2249 | 62 | 11 819 | 969 | 245 | 20 |
| High conflicts | 952 | 26 | 5668 | 563 | 286 | 28 |
| Total | 3656 | 100 | ||||
| Family-to-work conflicts | ||||||
| No conflicts | 1558 | 43 | 8123 | 693 | 247 | 21 |
| Some conflicts | 1201 | 33 | 6547 | 551 | 252 | 21 |
| High conflicts | 892 | 24 | 5023 | 485 | 263 | 25 |
| Total | 3651 | 100 | ||||
Notes: The numbers of short and long sickness absence spells and the numbers of short and long sickness absence spells per 100 person-years. Short sickness absence = 7 days or under. Long sickness absence = over 7 days.
High WTFC were associated with an increased level of short sickness absence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12–1.40) (table 2). Adjustment for family-related factors somewhat strengthened the association and after adjustment for family-related factors also having some WTFC was associated with short sickness absence (1.13, 1.02–1.25). Adjustment for work-related factors abolished the association between high WTFC and short sickness absence. High FTWC showed an association with short sickness absence (1.12, 1.03–1.22). Adjustment for family-related factors strengthened the association and there was an association concerning having some FTWC as well (1.11, 1.02–1.20). Adjustment for occupational class and work-related factors had no effect on these associations.
Table 2.
The associations between work–family conflicts and sickness absence
| Model 1 = age and gender | Model 1 + family-related factorsa | Model 1 + work-related factorsb | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Short sickness absence | |||
| Work-to-family conflicts | |||
| No conflicts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Some conflicts | 1.07 (0.97–1.19) | 1.13 (1.02–1.25) | 1.02 (0.92–1.13) |
| High conflicts | 1.25 (1.12–1.40) | 1.32 (1.18–1.47) | 1.12 (1.00–1.27) |
| Family-to-work conflicts | |||
| No conflicts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Some conflicts | 1.05 (0.97–1.13) | 1.11 (1.02–1.20) | 1.04 (0.96–1.12) |
| High conflicts | 1.12 (1.03–1.22) | 1.23 (1.12–1.34) | 1.11 (1.02–1.20) |
| Long sickness absence | |||
| Work-to-family conflicts | |||
| No conflicts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Some conflicts | 0.97 (0.80–1.18) | 1.02 (0.83–1.24) | 0.91 (0.75–1.11) |
| High conflicts | 1.37 (1.11–1.70) | 1.45 (1.17–1.79) | 1.16 (0.93–1.46) |
| Family-to-work conflicts | |||
| No conflicts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Some conflicts | 1.03 (0.89–1.19) | 1.07 (0.92–1.24) | 1.01 (0.87–1.17) |
| High conflicts | 1.24 (1.06–1.45) | 1.31 (1.10–1.55) | 1.22 (1.04–1.43) |
Note: RRs and their 95% CIs. Short sickness absence = 7 days or under. Long sickness absence = over 7 days.
Family-related factors consisted of the number of underaged children at home and living with a partner.
Work-related factors consisted of work hours, shift work, physically strenuous work, mentally strenuous work and satisfaction with supervisor work.
High WTFC showed an association with increased level of long sickness absence (1.37, 1.11–1.70) (table 2). Adjustment for family-related factors strengthened the association, and adjustment for work-related factors abolished the association. High FTWC were associated with an increased level of long sickness absence (1.24, 1.06–1.45). Adjustment for family-related factors strengthened the association, whereas the association was robust for adjusting for occupational class and for work-related factors.
WTFC were associated with short sickness absence among ‘routine non-manual’ and ‘manual workers’ (RR, 1.37, 1.15–1.65) (table 3). Regarding FTWC, an association was observed concerning ‘routine non-manual’ and ‘manual workers’ (1.21, 1.07–1.37) and for ‘semi-professionals’ (1.18, 1.04–1.33). WTFC were associated with long sickness absence among ‘routine non-manual’ and ‘manual workers’ (1.43, 1.03–1.98) and FTWC among ‘semi-professionals’ (1.31, 1.03–1.66).
Table 3.
The associations between work–family conflicts and sickness absence by occupational class adjusted for age and gender
| Routine non-manual workers and manual workers | Semi-professionals | Managers and professionals | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Short sickness absence | |||
| Work-to-family conflicts | |||
| No conflicts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Some conflicts | 1.17 (1.00–1.38) | 1.00 (0.87–1.16) | 1.07 (0.87–1.32) |
| High conflicts | 1.37 (1.15–1.65) | 1.17 (1.00–1.38) | 1.23 (0.98–1.55) |
| Family-to-work conflicts | |||
| No conflicts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Some conflicts | 1.20 (1.04–1.38) | 1.00 (0.90–1.12) | 0.95 (0.82–1.10) |
| High conflicts | 1.21 (1.07–1.37) | 1.18 (1.04–1.33) | 0.94 (0.80–1.11) |
| Long sickness absence | |||
| Work-to-family conflicts | |||
| No conflicts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Some conflicts | 1.15 (0.85–1.55) | 0.88 (0.66–1.17) | 0.75 (0.48–1.16) |
| High conflicts | 1.43 (1.03–1.98) | 1.30 (0.95–1.78) | 1.14 (0.71–1.82) |
| Family-to-work conflicts | |||
| No conflicts | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Some conflicts | 1.13 (0.90–1.42) | 1.06 (0.85–1.32) | 0.80 (0.58–1.10) |
| High conflicts | 1.24 (0.96–1.59) | 1.31 (1.03–1.66) | 0.99 (0.71–1.39) |
Note: RRs and their 95% CIs. Short sickness absence = 7 days or under. Long sickness absence = over 7 days.
WTFC were more common among women than among men (27% of women and 21% of men reported high conflicts) (Supplementary table S3). Women had more both short and long sickness absence spells (table 4). The RR of short sickness absence was 1.26, and the RR of long sickness absence was 1.35 higher among women compared with men. Adjustment for WTFC and FTWC had no effect on the associations between gender and sickness absence.
Table 4.
The associations between gender and sickness absence
| Model 1 adjusted for age | Model 1 + work-to-family conflicts | Model 1 + family-to-work conflicts | Model 1 + both types of work–family conflicts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short sickness absence | ||||
| Gender | ||||
| Men | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Women | 1.26 (1.17–1.37) | 1.24 (1.15–1.35) | 1.26 (1.17–1.37) | 1.25 (1.15–1.35) |
| Long sickness absence | ||||
| Gender | ||||
| Men | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Women | 1.35 (1.15–1.58) | 1.33 (1.13–1.56) | 1.35 (1.15–1.59) | 1.34 (1.14–1.57) |
Note: RRs and their 95% CIs. Short sickness absence = 7 days or under. Long sickness absence = over 7 days.
Discussion
This study examined the associations between WFC and sickness absence among young and early midlife municipal employees. Our study confirms the previous findings of the associations between WTFC and sickness absence.5–9 In addition, our study provided support for the less studied association between FTWC and sickness absence, although the associations were somewhat weaker than those for WTFC. Overall, the associations between WFC and sickness absence were moderate or weak, which was anticipated as the main reason behind sickness absence is reduced work ability due to illness. A novel finding was the association between WFC and short sickness absence, which was found both for WTFC and FTWC. The associations concerning short sickness absence were not stronger than those concerning long sickness absence. Thus, it was unlikely that short sickness absence was to a large extent used as a means to cope with the pressures of combining work and family life.
Living with a partner and underage children at home strengthened the associations. The results are in line with previous research where the associations have remained after adjustment for these factors. For example, in a Norwegian study, the associations remained after adjusting for marital status and underage children living at home,8 and in a Swedish study, children living at home and a partner played a minor role in the associations.7
Employees in lower socioeconomic positions have more sickness absence.13 The associations between socioeconomic position and WFC are reversed with employees in higher socioeconomic positions experiencing more WFC.26 Our study supported the previous findings as employees in higher occupational classes reported more FTWC. Previous research proposes that positive features of work typically associated with work in higher socioeconomic classes cannot compensate for the high demands that also come with these positions leading to WFC.26,27 In our study, associations between WFC and sickness absence were found among ‘semi-professionals’ and ‘routine non-manual workers and manual workers’ but not among ‘managers and professionals’. Thus, WFC experienced by employees in high occupational classes was not transmitted to sickness absence. Higher occupational positions might be more flexible, for example, regarding work schedule and allowing remote work, which helps combine work and family life. However, when interpreting the results, one must keep in mind that the stratified groups were rather small, and thus power issues might contribute to the findings. The result contrasts with a previous Finnish study which reported that WTFC were associated with sickness absence in all occupational classes except upper non-manual men.28 In some other studies, adjusting for socioeconomic position, the associations between WFC and sickness absence have remained.7–8,29,30
Work-related factors are well-known determinants of sickness absence14 and WFC.31 Adjusting these factors attenuated the associations between WTFC and sickness absence while the contribution was modest regarding FTWC. The finding is concordant with a review examining antecedents of WFC reporting that work factors related more strongly to WTFC and nonwork factors to FTWC.18 In the stratified analyses, the contribution of work-related factors concerned especially ‘semi-professionals’ (data not shown). Few previous studies have looked specifically at work-related factors, but in a Dutch study, the associations between WFC and sickness absence remained after adjusting for work schedule. However, when additionally adjusting for psychological job demands, decision latitude, emotional and physical demands, social support supervisor, and co‐workers the associations were abolished.29 In our study, analyzing separately the contribution of different work-related factors (data not shown), no particular working condition contributed more than others. The results suggest that improving work-related factors might aid in reducing sickness absence.
Women have more sickness absence spells than men5,16 and that was the case in our study as well. The double burden hypothesis suggests that bearing the main responsibility of the home and family matters while working outside the home accounts for extra sickness absence among women.32 Although women reported WTFC more often than men, WFCs did not explain the female excess in sickness absence in our study. Previous evidence regarding gender differences is inconclusive. A review concluded that women reported significantly higher WTFC and FTWC than men, but the direction and strength of associations between WFC and sickness absence between women and men varied.5 In line with us, a recent Swedish study found that a larger proportion of women compared with men reported WTFC but gender did not moderate the association between WFC and sickness absence.7 In contrast with us, in a Norwegian study, WTFC were equally common among women and men but the associations between WTFC and sickness absence were consistent among women only.8 Straightforward conclusions on gender differences are not warranted. Generation, culture and country’s welfare model and policies might play a role in gender differences in WFC and contribute to the variations in the findings. The working hours among men and women vary between countries.33 During the past decades, women have increased their working hours and decreased housework hours whereas vice versa has happened for men.33 However, in Finland, fathers still work longer hours than mothers.34 Almost a fifth of fathers and only 6% of mothers work more than 45 h per week.34
The strengths of our study include a large dataset, register-based sickness absence data, the possibility to differentiate between short and long sickness absence, prospective design and several covariates. The limitations include the non-response. However, according to non-response analyses, the data represent the target population fairly well. Employees with illness, burdening family situations or work may have chosen not to respond, which might dilute the associations. Sensitivity analyses were run by fitting the base models including participants with missing data on other covariates than age or gender. The results were nearly similar. The analyses were run also using the number of sickness absence days instead of spells during the follow-up as outcomes of sensitivity analysis. Differences were minor, but when analyzing days, the association between WTFC and long sickness absence was stronger suggesting that there were long-lasting sickness absence spells associated with WTFC. The associations between WFC and long-term sickness absence remain a topic for future study.
In conclusion, our study supported previous research by showing that both WTFC and FTWC are associated with sickness absence. Our study produced new findings by showing that WFC were associated with short sickness absence. WFC did not explain gender differences in sickness absence. Work-related factors abolished the associations between WTFC and sickness absence. Thus, a more comprehensive view of the impact of working conditions on health outcomes is needed. Intervention studies would be useful in determining if improvements in combining work and family life could reduce sickness absence.
Supplementary Material
Contributor Information
Aino Salonsalmi, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Anne Kouvonen, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Ossi Rahkonen, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Eero Lahelma, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Tea Lallukka, Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data are available at EURPUB online.
Funding
A.S. was funded by the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation. A.S. and A.K. were supported by the Finnish Work Environment Fund (Grant #220269). O.R. was supported by the Juho Vainio Foundation (Grant #202300041) and the Ministry of Education and Culture. T.L. was supported by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Grant 29/26/2020).
Conflicts of interest: None declared.
Data availability
Even the anonymized dataset cannot be shared publicly, because it contains confidential medical information, and the study participants and the City of Helsinki have not given their permission to data share. The data are available upon agreement with the Helsinki Health Study for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Researchers interested in the data may contact the Helsinki Health Study group (email: kttl-hhs@helsinki.fi).
Key points.
Work-to-family and family-to-work conflicts were both associated with short and long sickness absence, the associations being somewhat stronger concerning work-to-family conflicts.
Work-related factors contributed to the association between work-to-family conflicts and sickness absence.
Work-to-family conflicts were more common among women compared with men, but work–family conflicts did not explain the gender differences in sickness absence.
References
- 1. Frone MR, Russell M, Cooper ML.. Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. J Appl Psychol 1992;77:65–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Borgmann LS, Kroll LE, Müters S, et al. Work-family conflict, self-reported general health and work-family reconciliation policies in Europe: results from the European Working Conditions Survey 2015. SSM Popul Health 2019;9:100465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Lallukka T, Rahkonen O, Lahelma E, Arber S.. Sleep complaints in middle-aged women and men: the contribution of working conditions and work–family conflicts. J Sleep Res 2010;19:466–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Borgmann LS, Rattay P, Lampert T.. Health-related consequences of work-family conflict from a European perspective: results of a scoping review. Front Public Health 2019;7:189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Nilsen W, Skipstein A, Østby KA, Mykletun A.. Examination of the double burden hypothesis—a systematic review of work-family conflict and sickness absence. Eur J Public Health 2017;27:465–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Svedberg P, Mather L, Bergström G, et al. Work-home interface, perceived total workload and the risk of future sickness absence due to stress-related mental diagnoses among women and men: a prospective twin study. Int J Behav Med 2018;25:103–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hagqvist E, Lidwall U, Leineweber C.. Is work–life interference a risk factor for sickness absence? A longitudinal study of the Swedish working population. Eur J Public Health 2022;32:398–401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Marti AR, Degerud E, Sterud T.. Work–life interference and physician-certified sick leave: a prospective study of a general working population. Eur J Public Health 2023;33:69–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Kaila-Kangas L, Haukka E, Lallukka T, et al. Work-family conflicts and long-term medically certified sickness absence due to mental disorders—a follow-up study of female municipal employees. BMC Public Health 2023;23:1137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Kivimäki M, Head J, Ferrie JE, et al. Sickness absence as a global measure of health: evidence from mortality in the Whitehall II prospective cohort study. Bmj 2003;327:364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Feeney A, North F, Head J, et al. Socioeconomic and sex differentials in reason for sickness absence from the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med 1998;55:91–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Hiironen M-L, Peltola V, Pitkäkangas V, Toivanen L.. Alakohtaiset lyhyet sairauspoissaolot. LYHTY—Lyhyiden työpoissaolojen ennaltaehkäisy—hankkeen loppuraportti. Centria. Raportteja ja selvityksiä 2342-933X, Nro 51 (In Finnish). Theseus.
- 13. Christensen KB, Labriola M, Lund T, Kivimäki M.. Explaining the social gradient in long-term sickness absence: a prospective study of Danish employees. J Epidemiol Community Health 2008;62:181–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Laaksonen M, Pitkäniemi J, Rahkonen O, Lahelma E.. Work arrangements, physical working conditions, and psychosocial working conditions as risk factors for sickness absence: Bayesian analysis of prospective data. Ann Epidemiol 2010;20:332–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Kristensen TS. Sickness absence and work strain among Danish slaughterhouse workers: an analysis of absence from work regarded as coping behaviour. Soc Sci Med 1991;32:15–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Mastekaasa A, Melsom AM.. Occupational segregation and gender differences in sickness absence: evidence from 17 European countries. Eur Sociol Rev 2014;30:582–94. [Google Scholar]
- 17. Känsälä M, Oinas T.. The division of domestic work among dual-career and other dual-earner couples in Finland. Community Work Fam 2016;19:438–61. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Byron K. A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. J Vocat Behav 2005;67:169–98. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Michel JS, Kotrba LM, Mitchelson JK, et al. Antecedents of work–family conflict: a meta‐analytic review. J Organ Behavior 2011;32:689–725. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Blomgren J, Perhoniemi R.. Increase in sickness absence due to mental disorders in Finland: trends by gender, age and diagnostic group in 2005–2019. Scand J Public Health 2022;50:318–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Lallukka T, Pietiläinen O, Jäppinen S, et al. Factors associated with health survey response among young employees: a register-based study using online, mailed and telephone interview data collection methods. BMC Public Health 2020;20:184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. City of Helsinki. Staff Report 2021. Statistical data on staff. City of Helsinki, City Executive Office. City of Helsinki, Publications of the Central Administration 2022:14.
- 23. Grzywacz JG, Marks NF.. Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: an ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. J Occup Health Psychol 2000;5:111–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Roos E, Lahelma E, Rahkonen O.. Work–family conflicts and drinking behaviours among employed women and men. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006;83:49–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Kela. Families with Children. Briefly and in Plain Language. Edita Prima Oyj, Helsinki, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 26. Falkenberg H, Lindfors P, Chandola T, Head J.. Do gender and socioeconomic status matter when combining work and family: could control at work and at home help? Results from the Whitehall II study. Econ Ind Democr 2020;41:29–54. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Schieman S, Whitestone YK, Van Gundy K.. The nature of work and the stress of higher status. J Health Soc Behav 2006;47:242–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Vaananen A, Kumpulainen R, Kevin MV, et al. Work-family characteristics as determinants of sickness absence: a large-scale cohort study of three occupational grades. J Occup Health Psychol 2008;13:181–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Jansen NW, Kant IJ, van Amelsvoort LG, et al. Work-family conflict as a risk factor for sickness absence. Occup Environ Med 2006;63:488–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Voss M, Josephson M, Stark S, et al. The influence of household work and of having children on sickness absence among publicly employed women in Sweden. Scand J Public Health 2008;36:564–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Gallie D, Russell H.. Work-family conflict and working conditions in Western Europe. Soc Indic Res 2009;93:445–67. [Google Scholar]
- 32. Bratberg E, Dahl S-Å, Risa A.. The double burden’: do combinations of career and family obligations increase sickness absence among women? Eur Sociol Rev 2002;18:233–49. [Google Scholar]
- 33. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. Balancing paid work, unpaid work and leisure. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/balancingpaidworkunpaidworkandleisure.htm. 2014
- 34. Sorsa T, Rotkirch A.. Työ ja perhe ne yhteen soppii? Vanhemmuuden ja työn yhteensovittaminen suomalaisissa lapsiperheissä. Perhebarometri 2019–2020. Väestöliitto ry. Väestöntutkimuslaitos, Katsauksia E43/2020. (In Finnish). Väestöliitto.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Even the anonymized dataset cannot be shared publicly, because it contains confidential medical information, and the study participants and the City of Helsinki have not given their permission to data share. The data are available upon agreement with the Helsinki Health Study for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Researchers interested in the data may contact the Helsinki Health Study group (email: kttl-hhs@helsinki.fi).
Key points.
Work-to-family and family-to-work conflicts were both associated with short and long sickness absence, the associations being somewhat stronger concerning work-to-family conflicts.
Work-related factors contributed to the association between work-to-family conflicts and sickness absence.
Work-to-family conflicts were more common among women compared with men, but work–family conflicts did not explain the gender differences in sickness absence.