The impact of psychological status and quality of life of employees on presenteeism in the health-work relationship after earthquakes in Türkiye

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the workers' general health, psychological status, and quality of life perception on presenteeism after the major earthquakes on Türkiye in the relationship between health and labor.

Methods: This study was conducted at Baykan Denim Company, which manufactures in Malatya, with the participation of 327 employees. Data were collected using the socio-demographic questionnaire form, the Attitude Scale for Determining the Psychological Status of Individuals Exposed to Earthquakes, the General Health Questionnaire-12, the Quality of Life Scale and the Presenteeism Scale.

Results: The findings showed that the Attitude Scale for Determining the Psychological Status of Individuals Exposed to Earthquakes scores had a positive statistically significant effect on Presenteeism (β1=0.443; P=0.001) and General Health (β1=0.495; P=0.001) scores and a negative statistically significant effect on the Quality of Life (β1=-0.145; P=0.001) scores. Presenteeism scores had a positive and statistically significant effect on general health (β1=0.183; P=0.001) and Quality of Life (β1=0.131; P=0.009) scores. Presenteeism scores increased as general health and the Quality of Life scores increased.

Conclusions: This study concluded that individuals were mentally impacted by the earthquake. This impact was seen in individuals’ overall health perception and quality of life, leading to elevated presenteeism rates.

Keywords

• Earthquake
• health
• quality of life
• presenteeism

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Malatya Turgut Özal University Non-interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Decision no.: E-30785963-020-208770, date: 15.02.2024). This study was done in conformity with the Declaration of Helsinki, and consent was acquired from the participants.

References

1. 1. 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremlerindeki kayıplar. Available at: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Kahramanmara%C5%9F_depremlerindeki_kay%C4%B1plar. Accessed September 01, 2024.
2. 2. Chaudhary MT, Awais P. Natural disasters - origins, impacts, management. Encyclopedia. 2021;1(4):1101-1131. doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia1040084.
3. 3. Nakajima Ş. [Post-Earthqake Psychology]. Okmeydanı Tıp Derg. 2012;28(Suppl 2):150-155. doi: 10.5222/otd.supp2.2012.150. [Article in Turkish].
4. 4. Xu J, Wu Z. One-year follow-up analysis of cognitive and psychological consequences among survivors of the Wenchuan earthquake. Int J Psychol. 2011;46(2):144-152. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2010.529908.
5. 5. Oishi S, Kimura R, Hayashi H, et al. Psychological adaptation to the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995: 16 years later victims still report lower levels of subjective well-being. J Res Pers. 2015;55:84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.02.001.
6. 6. Türkkan T, Hatipoğlu E. Factors affecting the mental health of youth after the great Kahramanmaras earthquake disaster. J Soc Serv Res. 2025;51(2): 335-347. doi: 10.1080/01488376.2024.2352158.
7. 7. Çiftçi B. [The Problem of Presenteeısm And Solutions For Busıness]. Çalışma ve Toplum. 2010;1(24):153-174. [Article in Turkish].
8. 8. Schultz AB, Edington DW. Employee health and presenteeism: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(3):547-579. doi: 10.1007/s10926-007-9096-x.

9. 9. Martinez LF, Ferreira AI. Sick at work: presenteeism among nurses in a Portuguese public hospital. Stress Health. 2012;28(4):297-304. doi: 10.1002/smi.1432.
10. 10. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(13):835-840. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603283341306.
11. 11. Uygun Şahin Ö. [Quality of life and global climate change]. J Awareness. 2021;6(3):147-154. doi: 10.26809/joa.6.3.06. [Article in Turkish]
12. 12. Akıncı A, Tuncer G. [The Relationship Between Health Expenditures and Economic Growth in Turkey]. Sayıştay Derg. 2016;102:47-61. [Article in Turkish]
13. 13. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed., Taylor and Francis Group, LLC: New York; 2010.
14. 14. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed., The Guilford Press; 2011:209-342.
15. 15. Goldberg DP. Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NEFR Publishing; 1978.
16. 16. Kılıç C. Genel Sağlık Anketi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 1996;7(1):3-9. [Article in Turkish].
17. 17. Filiz M, Karagöz Y, Karaşin Y. [Scale Development Study to Determine the Psychological Effects Of Individuals Exposed to Earthquake]. Dicle Univ Sos Bil Enst Derg. 2023;33:236-250. doi: 10.15182/diclesosbed.1263545. [Article in Turkish]
18. 18. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(12):1569-85. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00009-4.
19. 19. Power M. Development of a common instrument for quality of life. In: Nosikov A, Gudex C, eds. EUROHIS: Developing Common Instruments for Health Surveys. IOS Press; 2003: pp.145-163.
20. 20. Schmidt S, Muhlan H, Power M. The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: Psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. Eur J Public Health. 2006;6(4):420-428. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cki155.
21. 21. Eser E, Lağarlı T, Baydur H, et al. [Pschometric properties of the Turkish version of the EUROHIS-Tr (WHOQOL-8-Tr) in a Turkish population]. Turk J Public Health. 2011;8(3):136-152. [Article in Turkish]
22. 22. Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, et al. Stanford Presenteeism Scale: Health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44(1):14-20. doi: 10.1097/00043764-200201000-00004.
23. 23. Baysal İA, Baysal G, Aksu G, Aksu N. [The Relation Between Presenteeism (The Problem of Not Attending Work) and Organızational Commitment: A Study on The Academic Staff of Adnan Menderes University]. Ejovoc (Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges). 2014;4(3):134-152. [Article in Turkish]
24. 24. Coşkun Ö, Akdur Recep. [Evaluation of Effective Factors in Absenteeism and Presenteeism at Two Workplaces]. In: Temizer A, Baytal Y, editors. New Trends in Socıal Scıences-V. Podgorica, Montenegro. 2018. pp. 415-448. [Article in Turkish]
25. 25. Dalkılıç E. Stanford işte varolamama ölçeğinin Türkçe’de geçerlik ve güvenirliği: Hemşireler üzerinde bir araştırma. [Master’s thesis]. İstanbul University; 2017. [Article in Turkish].
26. 26. İnceoğlu F, Demir P, Aydoğdu H. Adaptation of Fear of Missing Out Scale (FoMOs) to Dentistry. Selcuk Dent J. 2021;8(2):530-537. doi: 10.15311/selcukdentj.946507.
27. 27. Batmaz H, Ulusoy Y, İnceoğlu F. The Mediating Role Of Digital Game Addiction In The Correlation Between Cyber Victimization And Cyber Bullying. Int Soc Sci Stud J. 2020;6(73):5093-5108. doi: 10.26449/sssj.2726.
28. 28. Gliem AJ, Gliem RR. Calculating, interpreting and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. 2003:82-88.
29. 29. Arbuckle JL. IBM SPSS AMOS 21 User’s Guide. IBM Corp; 2012.
30. 30. İnceoğlu F, Yoloğlu S, Kanık EA. Comparative analysis of models in confirmatory factor analysis: Exploring clinical applications and interpretation. Med Sci. 2023;12(2):562-568. doi: 10.5455/medscience.2022.12.278.
31. 31. Gürbüz S. Sosyal Bilimlerde Aracı ve Düzenleyici Etki Analizleri (3rd ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık:, Ankara. 2025. [Article in Turkish].
32. 32. İnceoğlu F, Porgalı-Zayman E. Moderator effect of chronic disease on the relationship between marriage adjustment and satisfaction in married couples. Eur J Ther. 2023;29(3):459-468. doi: 10.58600/eurjther1722.
33. 33. Chen Y, Guo K, Ji Q, Zhang D. Not all climate risks are alike: Heterogeneous responses of financial firms to natural disasters in China. Finance Res Lett. 2023;52:103538. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2022.103538.
34. 34. Türkiye Earthquakes Recovery and Reconstruction Assessment. Presidency of the Republic of Turkey, Presidency of Strategy and Budget. Available at: https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Turkiye-Recovery-and-Reconstruction-Assessment.pdf. Accessed September 01, 2024.
35. 35. Taşkın Ö. [Health Economics in Sustainable Development and Analysis of Edirne Province in Terms of Health Sector]. Master’s thesis. Trakya University; 2011. [Article in Turkish]
36. 36. Arslaner E, Boylu Y. [Presenteeism in Work Life: An Evaluation in Hotel Industry]. İşletme Araştırmaları Derg. 2015;7(4):123-136. [Article in Turkish].
37. 37. Canbaz S. [Investigation of the Presenteeism Levels of Business Employees in Terms of Demographıc Characteristics]. Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri. 2021;2:25-41. [Article in Turkish].
38. 38. Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Morganstein D, Lipton R. Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce. JAMA. 2003;290(18):2443-2454. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.18.2443.
39. 39. Hemp P. Presenteeism: at work--but out of it. Harv Bus Rev. 2004;82(10):49-58, 155.
40. 40. Yılmaz G. [The Effect of Presenteeism and Job Stress on Employee Performance: An Application Example]. Master’s thesis. Trakya University; 2019. [Article in Turkish]
41. 41. Karaçınar H. [The Effect of Employees’ Dark Leadership and Favoritism Perceptions on Presenteeism: A Research on Textile Workers]. Journal of Economics Business and Political Researches. 2022;7(19):620-643. doi: 10.25204/iktisad.1148684. [Article in Turkish]
42. 42. Çetinkaya B. [The Mediating Effect of Work Engagement and Moderating Effect of Work Efficacy in the Relationship Between Presenteeism and Absenteeism: ISO 500 Research]. PhD thesis. Selçuk University; 2024. [Article in Turkish].
43. 43. İncekara İ. [The role of presenteeism and mindfulness in the impact of job demands and job resources on job performance]. PhD thesis. Başkent University; 2024. [Article in Turkish].
44. 44. Bulan S, Söyük S. [Evaluation of Theses on Presenteism]. Int J Discipl Econ Adm Sci Stud. 2022;8(46):721-730. doi: 10.29228/ideas.64501 [Article in Turkish].
45. 45. Özmen G. [The relationship between presenteeism and organizational commitment: A study on textile workers]. Master’s thesis. Eskişehir Osmangazi University; 2011. [Article in Turkish].
46. 46. Howard JT, Howard KJ. The effect of perceived stress on absenteeism and presenteeism in public school teachers. J Workplace Behav Health. 2020;35(2):100-116. doi: 10.1080/15555240.2020.1724794.
47. 47. Li Y, Zhang J, Wang S, Guo S. The Effect of Presenteeism on Productivity Loss in Nurses: The Mediation of Health and the Moderation of General Self-Efficacy. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1745. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01745.
48. 48. Masuda M, Ishimaru T, Hino A, et al; CORoNaWork Project. A Cross-Sectional Study of Psychosocial Factors and Sickness Presenteeism in Japanese Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Occup Environ Med. 2022 Jan 1;64(1):e1-7. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002415.
49. 49. Magalhaes S, Barbosa J, Borges E. The relationship between presenteeism, quality of life and social support in higher education professionals: A cross-sectional path analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0267514. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267514.
50. 50. Aronsson G, Hagberg J, Björklund C, et al. Health and motivation as mediators of the effects of job demands, job control, job support, and role conflicts at work and home on sickness presenteeism and absenteeism. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021;94(3):409-418. doi: 10.1007/s00420-020-01591-w.