↓ Skip to main content

Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 446)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Valuing productivity loss due to absenteeism: firm-level evidence from a Canadian linked employer-employee survey
Published in
Health Economics Review, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-016-0138-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Zhang, Huiying Sun, Simon Woodcock, Aslam H. Anis

Abstract

In health economic evaluation studies, to value productivity loss due to absenteeism, existing methods use wages as a proxy value for marginal productivity. This study is the first to test the equality between wage and marginal productivity losses due to absenteeism separately for team workers and non-team workers. Our estimates are based on linked employer-employee data from Canada. Results indicate that team workers are more productive and earn higher wages than non-team workers. However, the productivity gap between these two groups is considerably larger than the wage gap. In small firms, employee absenteeism results in lower productivity and wages, and the marginal productivity loss due to team worker absenteeism is significantly higher than the wage loss. No similar wage-productivity gap exists for large firms. Our findings suggest that productivity loss or gain is most likely to be underestimated when valued according to wages for team workers. The findings help to value the burden of illness-related absenteeism. This is important for economic evaluations that seek to measure the productivity gain or loss of a health care technology or intervention, which in turn can impact policy makers' funding decisions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 38 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 11 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 37 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,527,126
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#18
of 446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,790
of 420,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.