This issue of J Occup Health published an original article “Job insecurity is associated with presenteeism, but not with absenteeism: A study of 19 720 full-time waged workers in South Korea” by Kim et al., This study has two objectives: to evaluate the relationship between perceived job insecurity and presenteeism or absenteeism and to determine the numbers of days per year of presenteeism and absenteeism that best predict perceived job insecurity.1 This study showed that perceived job insecurity was associated with presenteeism of 2 days or more in a year in full-time waged workers, but no association was observed with absenteeism at any number of days. This means that presenteeism is a marker of workers’ perception of the security of their jobs rather than absenteeism. Additionally, this study provides insights into the cutoff value for days of presenteeism in this field. The discussion in this article concerns the gap between presenteeism and absenteeism. The authors explained that insecure workers did not take sick leave out of fear of dismissal.1 Heponiemi et al reported that subjective job insecurity contributed more to presenteeism than contractual job insecurity, such as fixed-term employment.2 Although these results are carefully assessed in relation to the healthy worker effect because of the cross-sectional design,3 the finding shows an important aspect in understanding the mechanisms underlying presenteeism and absenteeism. Another discussion point in this article is the cutoff value for days of presenteeism. We previously reported that there is no standard metric for measuring presenteeism, leading to varying definitions in the literature.4 The current study used “sickness presenteeism,” which is normally assessed by the number of days per year that employees worked despite feeing unwell.5 Because of the lack of a standard value for “sickness presenteeism,” occupational health practitioners cannot define it uniformly in daily practice. Therefore, the findings of the current study, 2 days or more per year of presenteeism, can be used to define “sickness presenteeism” in practice and in future research.

中文翻译：

---

出勤和缺勤：工作不安全性研究的启示


本期《J Occup Health》发表了 Kim 等人的原创文章《Job insecurity is Associated with Presenteeism, but not with Abouteeism: A Study of 19 720 Full-time payable Works in South Korean》，作者为 Kim 等人，该研究有两个目的：评估感知到的工作不安全感与出勤或缺勤之间的关系，并确定每年出勤和缺勤的天数，这最能预测感知到的工作不安全感。 1 这项研究表明，感知到的工作不安全感与出勤 2 天或以上的情况相关。一年内全职受薪工人的比例，但没有观察到与缺勤天数之间的关联。这意味着出勤率是工人对其工作安全感的标志，而不是缺勤率。此外，这项研究还提供了对该领域出勤天数截止值的见解。本文讨论的是出勤率和缺勤率之间的差距。作者解释说，缺乏安全感的员工不会因为担心被解雇而请病假。1 Heponiemi 等人报告称，主观工作不安全感比合同性工作不安全感（例如定期雇佣）更容易导致出勤现象。2 尽管这些结果是在由于横断面设计，与健康工人效应相关3，这一发现显示了理解出勤和缺勤背后机制的一个重要方面。本文中的另一个讨论点是出勤天数的截止值。我们之前报道过，没有衡量出勤率的标准指标，导致文献中的定义各不相同。4 目前的研究使用“因病出勤”，通常根据员工每年在身体不适的情况下工作的天数来评估。 5 由于“因病出勤”缺乏标准值，职业健康从业者无法对其进行统一定义在日常实践中。因此，本研究的结果，即每年出勤2天或以上，可以用来定义实践和未来研究中的“因病出勤”。