Abstract
The scientific literature about presenteeism among farm workers is scarce. This study estimated the prevalence of and factors associated with presenteeism among paid fruit farm workers. A cross-sectional study investigated 340 paid employees of both sexes, aged 18 years or above, who worked during the 2019 irrigated fruit harvest in the municipality of Petrolina, Northeast Brazil. Information about sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle, general health status, occupational characteristics, interpersonal work aspects, and the work environment’s structural characteristics was collected in a structured questionnaire. Presenteeism was established when participants reported working one or more days during the previous season despite feeling ill or when injured. Cox regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios adjusted by sex, area of residence (urban or rural), employment contract (permanent or seasonal), satisfaction with management, participation in workplace decision-making, availability of on-site healthcare facilities, and on-site availability of sunscreen. The prevalence of presenteeism during the previous season was high: 58.2%. In the final multivariate model, the adjusted prevalence ratio was higher (≥1.20) among female workers (1.42), workers dissatisfied with management (1.28), and those for whom sunscreen was not available on site (1.61). The prevalence of presenteeism was high and associated with personal, work organizational, and workplace resources characteristics.
Keywords: Agricultural workers’ diseases, Crops, Agricultural, Fruit, Presenteeism, Working conditions
Introduction
Presenteeism, or going to work despite feeling physically or psychologically sick1), is frequently found among workers from a range of occupations all around the world2, 3). However, there is no standard metric for measuring presenteeism4). The reason for this fact relies on two different conceptions of presenteeism. The “epidemiological” approach, predominant among European authors, is mainly interested in the frequency of the act of presenteeism and on occupational traits responsible for workers’ stress and illness. The “productivity” approach, predominant (but not exclusively) among American authors in occupational medicine, focus on productivity losses stemming from attending while ill5–7). Typically, the “epidemiological” approach uses a single-item question to measure presenteeism such as “ Has it happened over the previous 12 months that you have gone to work despite feeling that you really should have taken sick leave due to your state of health?”2). The “productivity” approach of presenteeism uses standardized instruments, like the Stanford Presenteeism Scale8) and other ones9–13).
A review5) reported that presenteeism rates varied from 30 to more than 90%, based on the results of 19 studies from 15 countries. These studies used one-item question to measure the prevalence of presenteeism.
To the best of our knowledge, only four studies evaluated presenteeism among farm workers. Three of these studies14–16) used the productivity approach and only one17) used the epidemiological approach. The latter study reported a 5.0% prevalence rate of presenteeism in the latter season, among migrant farm workers in North Carolina, USA.
In the genesis of the act of presenteeism one can identify personal motivations, through which the worker exerts himself because of engagement in and commitment to the job, to colleagues or to clients, and factors related to workplace pressure, through which the worker endeavours to avoid punishment, financial losses, or losing the job itself, as well as reproaches from management or colleagues18). The factors triggering the act of presenteeism reveal various patterns, depending on the nature of the work activity19).
Paid agricultural workers are usually involved in strenuous and hazardous manual labour20), subject to precarious and temporary employment contracts21, 22), present high rates of occupational diseases and injuries, have difficulties accessing health services, are on low incomes, and have low levels of education23, 24). It is therefore plausible to suppose that presenteeism among rural agricultural workers presents different patterns to those found among other categories of workers.
This study aims to estimate the prevalence of, and identify factors associated with, presenteeism among paid fruit farm workers in Northeast Brazil.
Materials and Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted with paid crop farm workers in irrigated fruit enterprises in the municipality of Petrolina, in the State of Pernambuco, Brazil (Fig. 1). Petrolina is situated in a semi-arid region, on the left bank of the São Francisco river. In 2010, the city had 354,317 inhabitants and a municipal Human Development Index of 0.69725). Due to its location and significant investment in irrigation, Petrolina has become a prosperous area for the production and export of fruit, especially grapes and mangos26). Fruit production is the main source of direct and indirect employment in the region. Hiring the workforce for these fruit crops is seasonal and depends on the phase of production. Employment contracts start in May, during the pre-harvest season, and intensify from July to September during fruit harvesting and packing. Mean monthly salary was US$ 282, without bonuses. The employment contracts and respective payments are regulated by the national work legislation and by the Collective Labor Agreement of workers in fruitculture. This Agreement assures a 50% bonus over the standard working hour for first two hours in overtime, and a 70% bonus for the subsequent hours. In October and November, when the harvest ends and the contract expires, most of the workforce is dismissed27). Once dismissed, there are few formal employment options in the region.
Fig. 1.
Caption: Petrolina municipality in Brazil and South America.
Footnote: CIA World Factbook / public domain, modified.
During the intercrop period, workers in irrigated fruitculture live on casual labour and a cash transfer programme of the Pernambuco state government called Chapéu de Palha da Fruticultura (Straw Hat Fruit Production benefit)22). The Chapéu de Palha da Fruticultura programme transfers an amount of money to each family of unemployed people who worked in the irrigated fruit farming during the last harvest. In 2019, the programme paid four monthly instalments of 282 reais (Brazilian currency), the equivalent of US$ 73, conditional on participation in training courses.
The study included all 7,116 paid crop farm workers, aged 18 years or above, who worked in the 2019 irrigated fruit crop season in Petrolina and participated in the 2020 Chapéu de Palha da Fruticultura Programme. We excluded those workers unable to respond to the questionnaire for physical or mental reasons.
A pilot study28) conducted with 40 workers in the local fruit crop industry found a 67.5% prevalence of presenteeism over the previous 12 months. To estimate the prevalence of presenteeism over the last 12 months, assuming the prevalence of 67.5%, with an absolute error of 5%, a confidence level of 95% and for a finite population of 7,116 individuals, we calculated a minimum sample size of 325. The study sample was proportionally stratified according to the number of expected workers in enrolment locations for the Chapéu de Palha da Fruticultura Programme - five in rural areas and one in the urban area of Petrolina.
A team of appropriately trained nursing undergraduate students applied an individual semi-structured questionnaire. Data collection occurred between January 27 and February 5, 2019, in the five Chapéu de Palha da Fruticultura Programme enrolment locations. Workers queuing in the enrolment locations were consecutively invited to share the study after signing an informed consent term. A total of 348 workers responded to the questionnaire, although eight gave very incomplete answers and were excluded from the study.
Dependent variable
Presenteeism was determined by their answer to the question “How many days have you worked this season when you were injured or ill?” Participants who reported one or more days were considered to demonstrate presenteeism17).
Presenteeist workers were asked to report the most important reason for going to work despite feeling ill or being injured and their answers were classified as: “symptoms were bearable”, “afraid of losing job”, “I don’t enjoy missing a working day”, “I couldn’t get a medical certificate”, “to achieve goals/to get productivity bonuses”, and “I would rather go to work than stay at home”.
Independent variables : Sociodemographic variables
Age was categorized into age groups of 18–31 or 32–59 years (according to the median of 31 years); schooling (>5 or ≤5 years of study), area of residence (rural or urban area), skin colour (White or non-White), main contributor to family income (the worker or other relatives: their partner, both worker and partner, parents, grandparents, children).
General health status
Self-reported evaluations of workers’ general health were dichotomized as poor/regular or good/very good. Chronic health problems were defined as having been diagnosed by a medical doctor and with a duration of over six months, dichotomized as yes or no. The number of flu or common cold episodes in the last 12 months were dichotomized as None = no or One or more = yes. Work-related disease or injury were based on worker self-report regarding his/her activity in the fruit crop industry during the previous season, dichotomized as yes or no. Use of analgesics in the previous 15 days was categorized as yes or no, based on a question of a national survey about access to and use of medicines29). Absenteeism was considered when the worker reported that he/she had not shown up for scheduled work at least one day5) during his/her last employment contract in the fruit crop industry, and coded as yes or no.
Lifestyle
Alcohol consumption was defined as the ingestion of five or more doses of alcohol for men, and four or more for women on at least one occasion over the previous month, dichotomized as yes or no30). Physical exercise was categorized according to weekly frequency into ≤2 days a week or ≥3 days a week30). Travelling to and from the workplace on foot or bicycle was categorized as yes (all or most of the way) or no (not for all or part of the way)30).
Occupational characteristics
Length of time as a paid rural worker was categorized into <7 years or ≥7 years, according to the median of 7 years); work location (packing house or field); type of employment contract with the fruit crop enterprise, categorized as permanent or temporary (contract with a predetermined end date); duration of employment contract was categorized into ≥4 months or <4 months, according to the median of 4 months); weekly working hours (<44 hours or ≤44 hours, according to the median of 44 hours); extra working hours (yes or no); received productivity bonus (yes or no); and work breaks allowed (yes or no).
Interpersonal work aspects
The questions about satisfaction in relationship with colleagues (Have you been satisfied with the relationship with your colleagues?), satisfaction in relationship with management (Have you been satisfied with the way your supervisor used to treat you?), and participation in workplace decision-making (Did you participate in decisions about your job activities?) were answered as yes or no.
Workplace resources and facilities
Workers’ opinions about the availability of on-site healthcare facilities, adequate bathrooms, drinking water, canteens, sun protection clothing, sunscreen, and personal protective equipment were dichotomized as yes or no.
Data analysis
Since presenteeism depends on illness19), the variables related to general worker health (chronic health problems, flu/common cold, work-related diseases or injuries, general health status, use of analgesics, and absenteeism) were presented in descriptive form in order to characterize the act of presenteeism. Exploring variables so closely related to the outcome can lead to an over- or under-estimation of the main association. For the other variables we investigated (sociodemographic, lifestyle, occupational characteristics, interpersonal work aspects, and workplace resources and facilities), we calculated the crude prevalence ratio (PRcrude) for the presenteeism outcome during the previous harvest season.
We used multivariate Cox regression31) to calculate prevalence ratios, adjusted for the independent variables (predictors), and also implemented two Cox regression models. The variables we entered in the models were selected on the basis of the magnitude of their bivariate association with the outcome and their theoretical plausibility. To compose the first (saturated) model, we selected the variables presenting PR≥1.20. We chose this PR value because of the high prevalence of presenteeism in the study population. Only variables with PR≥1.20 remained in the final (adjusted) model. We opted to include and maintain the employment contract variable in the final model, due to the notorious influence of precarious job contracts on presenteeism5). The work location variable was also maintained in the final model, since field workers are more exposed to sunlight and the effects of the hot climate than packing house workers32).
This study was based on a non-probabilistic sample, meaning that the use of statistical inference is inappropriate. The 95% confidence limits presented here merely provide a biased estimated precision. We did not use these confidence intervals to select the variables to form the regression models or to make any kind of statistical inference33–35).
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), version 22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).
This study was approved by the Committee for Ethics in Research on Human Beings at the Feira de Santana State University, under opinion number 3.554.663.
Results
Presenteeism during the previous season was found in 58.2% of the 340 agricultural workers investigated. The most frequent reasons claimed by the 198 presenteeist workers for having gone to work despite feeling ill or being injured were: “symptoms were bearable” (26.8%), “afraid of losing job” (26.3%), “I don’t enjoy missing a working day” (24.7%), “I couldn’t get a medical certificate” (16.7%), followed by “to achieve goals/to get productivity bonuses” (3.5%), and “I would rather go to work than stay at home” (2.0%).
Bivariate analyses revealed that the prevalence of presenteeism of chronic diseases, flu or common cold episodes, work-related diseases or injuries, poor or regular health status, use of analgesics, and absenteeism was more frequently reported by presenteeist workers (Table 1). Further, the prevalence of presenteeism was substantially higher (PR≥1.20) among female workers (PR=1.46), living in rural areas (PR=1.21) (Table 2), dissatisfied with management (PR=1.27), who reported no participation in workplace decision-making (PR=1.28) (Table 3), and for whom on-site healthcare facilities (PR=1.36) and on-site sunscreen (PR=1.71) were not available (Table 4).
Table 1. Presenteeism during the previous season according to characteristics reported by 340 agricultural workers in irrigated fruit crop enterprises, Petrolina, Brazil.
| Characteristic | Presenteeism | PR | |||
| Yes | No | ||||
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Chronic health problem | |||||
| Yes | 73 | 70.2 | 31 | 29.8 | 1.32 |
| No | 125 | 53.0 | 111 | 47.0 | 1 |
| Flu or common cold | |||||
| Yes | 110 | 70.1 | 47 | 29.9 | 1.46 |
| No | 88 | 48.1 | 95 | 51.9 | 1 |
| Work-related disease or injury | |||||
| Yes | 149 | 69.6 | 65 | 30.4 | 1.79 |
| No | 49 | 38.9 | 77 | 61.1 | 1 |
| General health status | |||||
| Poor/Regular | 78 | 73.6 | 28 | 48.7 | 1.44 |
| Good/Very good | 120 | 51.3 | 114 | 26.4 | 1 |
| Use of analgesics* | |||||
| Yes | 115 | 71.4 | 46 | 28.6 | 1.54 |
| No | 81 | 46.3 | 94 | 53.7 | 1 |
| Absenteeism | |||||
| Yes | 103 | 67.8 | 49 | 32.2 | 1.34 |
| No | 95 | 50.5 | 93 | 49.5 | 1 |
PR Prevalence ratio
* Missing cases n=4
Table 2. Presenteeism during the previous season according to sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyle reported by 340 agricultural workers in irrigated fruit crop enterprises, Petrolina, Brazil.
| Characteristic/lifestyle | Presenteeism | Prevalence ratio | |||
| Yes | No | ||||
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 116 | 69.5 | 51 | 30.5 | 1.46 |
| Male | 82 | 47.4 | 91 | 52.6 | 1 |
| Age (years)* | |||||
| 18-31 | 107 | 62.6 | 64 | 37.4 | 1.15 |
| 32-59 | 91 | 54.2 | 77 | 45.8 | 1 |
| Skin colour** | |||||
| Non-White | 170 | 58.6 | 120 | 41.4 | 1.10 |
| White | 25 | 53.2 | 22 | 46.8 | 1 |
| Schooling (years of study)* | |||||
| >5 | 109 | 55.1 | 71 | 50.4 | 1.08 |
| ≤5 | 89 | 44.9 | 70 | 49.6 | 1 |
| Area of residence | |||||
| Rural | 126 | 62.5 | 75 | 37.5 | 1.21 |
| Urban | 72 | 51.8 | 67 | 48.2 | 1 |
| Main contributor to family income* | |||||
| Other relatives | 101 | 61.6 | 63 | 38.4 | 1.11 |
| Worker him/herself | 97 | 55.4 | 78 | 44.6 | 1 |
| Alcohol consumption | |||||
| Yes | 59 | 62.8 | 35 | 37.2 | 1.11 |
| No | 139 | 56.5 | 107 | 43.5 | 1 |
| Physical exercise | |||||
| ≤2 days a week | 147 | 59.3 | 101 | 40.7 | 1.07 |
| ≥3 days a week | 51 | 55.4 | 41 | 44.6 | 1 |
| Travels to work on foot or bicycle | |||||
| No | 73 | 59.3 | 50 | 40.7 | 1.03 |
| Yes | 125 | 57.6 | 92 | 42.4 | 1 |
* Missing case n=1; ** Missing cases n=3
Table 3. Presenteeism during the previous season according to occupational characteristics and interpersonal work aspects reported by 340 agricultural workers in irrigated fruit crop enterprises, Petrolina, Brazil.
| Occupational characteristic/ Interpersonal work aspect |
Presenteeism | PR | |||
| Yes | No | ||||
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Time as a paid rural worker | |||||
| <7 years | 104 | 59.1 | 72 | 40.9 | 1.03 |
| ≥7 years | 94 | 57.3 | 70 | 42.7 | 1 |
| Work location | |||||
| Field | 146 | 58.9 | 102 | 41.1 | 1.04 |
| Packing House | 52 | 56.5 | 40 | 43.5 | 1 |
| Employment contract* | |||||
| Permanent | 36 | 62.1 | 22 | 37.9 | 1.07 |
| Seasonal | 162 | 57.9 | 118 | 42.1 | 1 |
| Employment contract duration** | |||||
| ≥4 months | 72 | 59.5 | 49 | 40.5 | 1.02 |
| <4 months | 108 | 58.1 | 78 | 41.9 | 1 |
| Weekly working hours | |||||
| >44 hours | 143 | 58.8 | 100 | 41.2 | 1.04 |
| ≤44 hours | 55 | 56.7 | 42 | 43.3 | 1 |
| Extra working hours | |||||
| Yes | 152 | 58.9 | 106 | 41.1 | 1.05 |
| No | 46 | 56.1 | 36 | 43.9 | 1 |
| Productivity bonus | |||||
| Yes | 123 | 59.1 | 85 | 40.9 | 1.04 |
| No | 75 | 56.8 | 57 | 43.2 | 1 |
| Work breaks allowed | |||||
| No | 104 | 61.9 | 64 | 38.1 | 1.13 |
| Yes | 94 | 54.7 | 78 | 45.3 | 1 |
| Satisfaction with colleagues | |||||
| No | 17 | 58.6 | 12 | 41.4 | 1.01 |
| Yes | 181 | 58.2 | 130 | 41.8 | 1 |
| Satisfaction with management | |||||
| No | 33 | 71.7 | 13 | 28.3 | 1.27 |
| Yes | 165 | 56.1 | 129 | 43.9 | 1 |
| Participation in workplace decision-making | |||||
| No | 134 | 63.5 | 77 | 36.5 | 1.28 |
| Yes | 64 | 49.6 | 65 | 50.4 | 1 |
* Missing cases n=2; ** Missing cases n=33
Table 4. Presenteeism during the previous season according to availability of workplace resources and facilities reported by 340 agricultural workers in irrigated fruit crop enterprises, Petrolina, Brazil.
| Availability at the workplace of: | Presenteeism | PR | |||
| Yes | No | ||||
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Healthcare facilities | |||||
| No | 87 | 70.2 | 37 | 29.8 | 1.36 |
| Yes | 111 | 51.4 | 105 | 48.6 | 1 |
| Adequate bathrooms | |||||
| Yes | 184 | 58.4 | 131 | 41.6 | 1.04 |
| No | 14 | 56.0 | 11 | 44.0 | 1 |
| Drinking water | |||||
| Yes | 173 | 58.2 | 124 | 41.8 | 1.00 |
| No | 25 | 58.1 | 18 | 41.9 | 1 |
| Canteen | |||||
| Yes | 184 | 58.4 | 131 | 41.6 | 1.04 |
| No | 14 | 56.0 | 11 | 44.0 | 1 |
| Sun protection clothing | |||||
| No | 108 | 63.2 | 63 | 36.8 | 1.18 |
| Yes | 90 | 53.3 | 79 | 46.7 | 1 |
| Sunscreen | |||||
| No | 172 | 63.7 | 98 | 36.3 | 1.71 |
| Yes | 26 | 37.1 | 44 | 62.9 | 1 |
| Personal Protective Equipment | |||||
| No | 15 | 60.0 | 10 | 40.0 | 1.03 |
| Yes | 183 | 58.1 | 132 | 41.9 | 1 |
The multivariate analyses began with a saturated model containing the variables that demonstrated a PR≥1.20 in the bivariate analyses: sex, area of residence, satisfaction with the management, participation in workplace decision-making, availability of on-site healthcare facilities and on-site sunscreen, work location and employment contract. The final adjusted model revealed that the variables female sex (RPaj≥1.42), dissatisfaction with management (RPaj≥1.28), and lack of on-site sunscreen (RPaj≥1.61) remained strongly associated with presenteeism, even when controlling for work location and employment contract (Table 5).
Table 5. Crude (PRcrude) and adjusted (PRadj) prevalence ratios (PR) of presenteeism during the previous season according to predictors among 338 agricultural workers in irrigated fruit crop enterprises, Petrolina, Brazil.
| Predictors (referent) | PRcrude (IC 95%) | PRadj (IC 95%) Saturated model |
PRadj (IC 95%) Adjusted model |
| Female sex (male) | 1.46 (1.10–1.94) | 1.36 (1.02–1.82) | 1.42 (1.06–1.88) |
| Area of residence - rural (urban) | 1.21 (0.90–1.61) | 1.17 (0.87–1.59) | - |
| Participation in workplace decision-making (yes) | 1.28 (0.95–1.72) | 1.17 (0.86–1.59) | - |
| Healthcare facilities available at workplace (yes) | 1.36 (1.03–1.81) | 1.16 (0.86–1.57) | - |
| Satisfaction with management (yes) | 1.28 (0.88–1.86) | 1.23 (0.84–1.80) | 1.28 (0.88–1.86) |
| Sunscreen available at workplace (yes) | 1.71 (1.13–2.59) | 1.50 (0.98–2.29) | 1.61 (1.06–2.44) |
| Work location - field (packing house) | 1.04 (0.76– 1.43) | 0.99 (0.71–1.40) | 1.08 (0.78–1.50) |
| Employment contract - temporary (permanent) | 0.93 (0.65–1.34) | 0.96 (0.66–1.39) | 0.93 (0.65–1.35) |
Discussion
In this study, the prevalence of presenteeism during the previous season (58.2%) was high compared to that of 5.0% found among migrant farm workers in North Carolina, USA, using the same method for measuring prevalence17). Unfortunately, the focus of the other few studies that evaluated presenteeism among farm workers was not epidemiological, but on productivity, making it impossible to compare their results with ours. The prevalence of presenteeism in the last 12 months was also high among workers in other sectors of the economy: 32.3% in a food processing industry36); 58.7% in the construction industry4); and 68.5% in office workers37).
In this study, workers reported their reasons for presenteeism to be: fear of losing job (26.3%), and the impossibility of acquiring a medical certificate to evidence their disease or injury (16.7%). These reasons differ from those reported by workers randomly selected from the working populations of Norway and Sweden: “Don’t want to burden my colleagues” (43%), “I enjoy my work” (37%), and “Nobody else is able to carry out my responsibilities” (35%)38).
The high physical and psychological demands of agricultural work favour illness20) and, consequently, absenteeism. The high prevalence of absenteeism (67.8%) during the previous crop season found in the presenteeist workers indicates the close relationship between these two phenomena5). The literature suggests that presenteeism is a precedent of absenteeism, and both events can contribute to the cycle that leads to a deterioration in worker health17, 19, 39).
Among workers of the female sex, the adjusted prevalence rate for presenteeism was 1.42 times higher than among male workers. Gender stereotypes may influence work and health-related behaviours40). Activities in the Petrolina irrigated fruit crop industry are divided along gender lines. Women are usually involved in harvesting, thinning, and packing, which are typically seasonal activities related to temporary, short-term employment contracts21). Female workers are therefore more prone to presenteeism, since they might be afraid of losing future job contracts. Compared to men, female agricultural workers report good health less frequently24), and present more absenteeism14). The limited provision of formal jobs in most economy sectors, including agriculture, means that these women are even more dependent on temporary work in fruit farming, especially if they live in rural areas22).
In this study, psychological work-related aspects, such as dissatisfaction with the management and lack of participation in workplace decision-making were associated with greater prevalence of presenteeism, as reported in previous studies5, 41). However, a reverse effect cannot be ruled out, considering the nature of studies with a cross-sectional design5). In other words, presenteeism could also lead to job dissatisfaction, as reported elsewhere42). Despite its importance, there continues to be no uniform definition for the phenomenon of presenteeism in research, nor is there any standard method to measure it. Empirical studies about presenteeism correlates cannot therefore clearly distinguish between cause and effect5).
In order to comply with Brazilian labour laws for the fruit crop industry, the management has to provide appropriate clothing to protect workers against sunlight (at the very least, head bands) and on-site sunscreen43). Exposure to the hot climate and sunlight, usually without breaks or appropriate clothing, can lead to serious health problems over both the short- and long-term32, 44, 45). In this study, sunscreen was not available to 79.4% of the workers, while 50.3% did not receive sun protection clothing, which could have contributed to the prevalence of presenteeism. When enterprises ignore health and safety regulations in the workplace, they expose their employees to unnecessary risks. Such abusive contexts can lead workers to adopt risky behaviour, such as going to work despite feeling ill, creating a perverse chain of illness, presenteeism and fear37, 42).
Certain study limitations and strengths must be taken into account. In the context of a cross-sectional study such as this, reverse causality cannot be ruled out and the associations reported here should be interpreted with caution. The inclusion of workers enrolled in the Chapéu de Palha na Fruticultura Programme may limit the generalization of the results to other populations. However, this strategy allows us to access a large section of the eligible population, in a location some distance from the influence of management, which could, in itself, have caused information bias. Despite its limitations, the study’s results are relevant, given the scarcity of national and international studies about presenteeism among crop farm workers.
Conclusions
There is a lack of studies in the scientific literature about the prevalence of presenteeism among farm workers. This study revealed that the prevalence of presenteeism is rampant among crop farm workers in irrigated fruit crop sector in Brazil. The prevalence of presenteeism was positively associated with factors related to personal (feminine sex), work organizational (dissatisfaction with management), and workplace resources (on-site unavailability of sunscreen) characteristics. It is recommendable that other studies investigate the prevalence of and factors associated with presenteeism in other non-formal working populations.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding
Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), grant #304691/2018-6.
References
- 1).Ma J, Meltzer DP, Yang L-Q, Liu C (2018) Motivation and presenteeism: The whys and whats. In: Presenteeism at work. Cooper CL; Luo L (Eds.), 97–122, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
- 2).Aronsson G, Gustafsson K, Dallner M (2000) Sick but yet at work. An empirical study of sickness presenteeism. J Epidemiol Community Health 54, 502–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3).Kinman G (2019) Sickness presenteeism at work: prevalence, costs and management. Br Med Bull 129, 107–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4).Ishimaru T, Mine Y, Fujino Y (2020) Two definitions of presenteeism: sickness presenteeism and impaired work function. Occup Med 70, 95–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5).Lohaus D, Habermann W (2019) Presenteeism: a review and research directions. Hum Resource Manag Rev 29, 43–58. [Google Scholar]
- 6).Pie ACS, Fernandes RCP, Carvalho FM, Porto LA (2020) Presenteeism and associated fctors in industry workers. Rev Bras Saude Ocup 45, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- 7).Johns G (2010) Presenteeism in the work place: a review and research agenda. J Organ Behav 31, 512–42. [Google Scholar]
- 8).Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, Sharda CE, Berger ML, Turpin RS, Robin S, Hackleman P, Gibson P, Holmes DM, Bendel T (2002) Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med 44, 14–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9).Lerner D, Amick BC 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D (2001) The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care 39, 72–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10).Shikiar R, Halpern MT, Rentz AM, Khan ZM (2004) Development of the health and work questionnaire (HWQ): an instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation to worker health. Work 22, 219–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11).Gartner FR, Nieuwenhuijsen K, van Dijk FJ, Sluiter JK (2011) Psychometric properties of the nurses work functioning questionnaire (NWFQ). PLoS One 6, e26565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12).Gillespie GL, Gates DM, Succop P (2011) Psychometrics of the healthcare productivity survey. Adv Emerg Nurs J 32, 258–71. [Google Scholar]
- 13).Gilbreath B, Karimi L (2012) Supervisor behavior and employee presenteeism. Int J Leadersh Stud 7, 114–31. [Google Scholar]
- 14).Mekonnen TH, Lamessa SK, Wami SD (2019) Sickness-related absenteeism and risk factors associated among flower farm industry workers in Bishoftu town, Southeast Ethiopia, 2018: a cross-sectional study. BMC Res Notes 12, 9–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15).Ng YG, Tamrin SBM, Yik WM, Yusoff ISM, Mori I (2014) The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorder and association with productivity loss: a preliminary study among labour intensive manual harvesting activities in oil palm plantation. Ind Health 52, 78–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16).Crimes D, Enticott G (2019) Assessing the social and psychological impacts of endemic animal disease Amongst Farmers. Front Vet Sci 6, 342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17).Arcury TA, Hara HO, Grzywacz JG, Isom S, Chen H, Quandt AS (2012) Work safety climate, musculoskeletal discomfort, working while injured, and depression among migrant farmworkers in North Carolina. Amer J Publ Health 102, 272–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18).Lu L, Lin HY, Cooper CL (2013) Unhealthy and present: motives and consequences of the act of presenteeism among Taiwanese employees. J Occup Health Psychol 18, 406–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19).Gosselin E (2018) The dynamic of assiduity at work: presenteeism and absenteeism. In: Presenteeism at work, Cooper CL, Luo L (Eds.), 123–44, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
- 20).Rocha LP, Cezar-Vaz MR, Almeida MCV, Piexak DR, Bonow CA (2014) Association between pain and agricultural workload. Acta Paul Enferm 27, 333–9. [Google Scholar]
- 21).Silva CA, Menezes MA, Oliveira RV (2018) Às margens do desenvolvimento: o trabalho das mulheres e a luta por direitos no polo de fruticultura de Petrolina/PE-Juazeiro/BA. Cad Pagu 52, 27–41 (in Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- 22).Siqueira VB, Oliveira LMR, Siqueira MAS, Nascimento EA (2017) Trabalhadoras rurais: relações de trabalho e percepções sobre eventos violentos. Rev enferm UFPE online 11, 1662–6 (in Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- 23).Costa PFF, Santos SL, Silva MS, Gurgel IGD (2017) Prevalence of common mental disorders among sugarcane workers. Rev Saude Publica 51, 113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24).Moreira JPL, Oliveira BLCA, Muzi CD, Cunha CLF, Brito AS, Luiz RR (2015) A saúde dos trabalhadores da atividade rural no Brasil. Cad Saude Publica 31, 1698–708 (in Portuguese). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25).Brasil. IBGE (2017) Petrolina. IBGE, v4.6.11 https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/pe/petrolina/panorama (in Portuguese). Accessed November 25, 2021.
- 26).Souto Júnior JF (2013) Se parar, a fruta apodrece: fordismo e sindicatos no vale do São Francisco. Rev Espaço Diálogo Desconexão 7. https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/redd/article/view/6384 (in Portuguese). Accessed December 2, 2021.
- 27).Silva PCG (2014) Trabalho feminino na fruticultura irrigada no submédio do vale do São Francisco. In: Oliveira LMSR, Flores FT (eds.) Mulheres em perspectiva: Relações de gênero, trabalho e saúde. Curitiba: CRV, 75–93 (in Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- 28).Hertzog MA (2008) Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Res Nurs Health 31, 180–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29).Mengue SS, Bertoldi AD, Boing AC, Tavares NUL (2016) National survey on access, use and promotion of rational use of medicines (PNAUM): household survey component methods. Rev Saude Publica 50, 1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30).Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – IBGE (2015) Pesquisa nacional de saúde 2013. Acesso e utilização dos serviços de saúde, acidentes e violências: Brasil, grandes regiões e unidades da federação. 39, https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv94074.pdf (in Portuguese). Accessed November 25, 2021.
- 31).Barros AJD, Hirakata VN (2003) Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol 3, 1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32).Moyce S, Mitchell D, Armitage T, Tancredi D, Joseph J (2017) Heat strain, volume depletion and kidney function in California agricultural workers. Occup Environ Med 74, 402–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33).Rothman KJ (2014) Six persistent research misconceptions. J Gen Intern Med 29, 1060–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34).Hahn GJ, Meeker WQ (1993) Assumptions for statistical inference. Am Stat 47, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
- 35).Greenland S (1990) Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology 1, 421–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36).Silva BMCC, Zanatta AB, Lucca SR (2017) Prevalence of presenteeism among workers of an industrial company. Rev Bras Med Trab 15, 236–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37).Platts LG, Seddigh A, Berntson E, Westerlund H (2020) Sickness absence and sickness presence in relation to office type: an observational study of employer-recorded and self-reported data from Sweden. PLoS One 15, 1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38).Johansen V, Aronsson G, Marklund S (2014) Positive and negative reasons for sickness absence presenteeism in Norway and Sweden: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 4, e004123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39).Janssens H, Clays E, De Clercq B, De Bacquer D, Braeckman L (2013) The relation between presenteeism and different types of future sickness absence. J Occup Health 55, 132–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40).Sendén MG, Schenck-Gustafsson K, Fridner A (2016) Gender differences in reasons for sickness presenteeism - a study among GPs in a Swedish health care organization. Ann Occup Environ Med 28, 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41).Miraglia M, Johns G (2016) Going to work ill: a meta-analysis of the correlates of presenteeism and a dual-path model. J Occup Health Psychol 21, 261–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42).Karanika-Murray M, Pontes HM, Grif MD, Biron C (2015) Sickness presenteeism determines job satisfaction via affective-motivational states. Soc Sci Med. 139, 100–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43).Sindicato Rural de Petrolina, Federação dos trabalhadores e trabalhadoras assalariados rurais de Pernambuco – FETAEPE (2020) Convenção Coletiva de Trabalho 2020/2020. https://www.fetape.org.br/imagens/documentos/VALEXPORT_CCT_2018_-_PE_-__REGISTRADA.pdf (in Portuguese). Accessed November 25, 2021.
- 44).Cezar-Vaz MR, Bonow CA, Kowalczyk S, Vaz JC, Borges M (2015) Skin cancer in rural workers: nursing knowledge and intervention. Rev Esc Enferm USP 49, 564–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45).Mutic AD, Mix JM, Elon L, Mutic NJ, Economos J, Flocks J, Tovar-Aguilar AJ, McCauley LA (2017) Classification of heat-related illness symptoms among Florida farmworkers. J Nurs Scholarsh 50, 1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]