↓ Skip to main content

The gender gap in sickness absence from work and the influence of parental absence on offspring absence 15 years later: register-based cohort of Norwegians born in 1974–1976

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
The gender gap in sickness absence from work and the influence of parental absence on offspring absence 15 years later: register-based cohort of Norwegians born in 1974–1976
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2037-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petter Kristensen, Karina Corbett, Ingrid Sivesind Mehlum

Abstract

Women have shown consistently higher levels of sickness absence from work in comparison to men, but explanations for this gender gap have not been completely understood. Life-course studies suggest that health and health-related social benefits in adult age are influenced by early life experiences. We aimed to estimate intergenerational associations with a 15-year time gap between parents' and offspring sickness absences, pursuing the hypothesis that this parental influence would have a stronger impact for women than for men. All persons born alive between 1974 and 1976 in Norway were followed up in several national registries. Employed persons considered to be at risk of sickness absence and also with parents at risk of sickness absence (n = 78 878) were followed in the calendar year of their 33(rd) birthday with respect to spells lasting >16 days. The probability of one or more spells during this year constituted the one-year risk under study. Additive risk differences in association with an exposure (parental sickness absence 15 years earlier) were estimated in a binomial regression analysis. The estimates were adjusted for parental socioeconomic factors. The 1-year sickness absence risk was higher for women (30.4 %) than for men (12.3 %). The crude risk differences between those exposed and those unexposed to parental sickness absence were similar in percentage points (PP) for women (3.8; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.6 to 4.9) and men (3.8; 95 % CI 2.9 to 4.6). The risk differences were moderately attenuated after adjustment for parental education and father's income to 3.4 PP (2.2 to 4.5) for women and 2.8 PP (2.0 to 3.7) for men. Male absence was more strongly associated with the father's than with the mother's sickness absence, while associations for women were stronger for the same diagnostic groups as their parents. Parental sickness absence was moderately associated with sickness absence in the next generation. Bias from unmeasured confounders cannot be entirely dismissed. Contrary to our hypothesis, associations were not stronger for women than for men. If parental sickness absence has a long-term causal effect, preventive measures could have an impact over generations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 13%
Engineering 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 July 2016.
All research outputs
#12,870,083
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,881
of 14,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,386
of 264,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#161
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 273 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.