Sickness absence is one of the most important working population health indicators. It is a complex phenomenon that is investigated by health care and occupational health specialists, economists, and work psychologists. Sickness absence is used as a predictor for morbidity and mortality, but besides the health status of an individual, sickness absence is influenced by demographic, socio-economic factors, and work environment factors. Conflicts at work are a common psychosocial risk factor that can affect sickness absence. The aim of the study was to investigate the association between different types of workplace conflict and self-reported medically certified sickness absence using cross-sectional survey data pooled from four periodic national surveys—Work conditions and risks in Latvia (2006–2018). The sample is representative of the working population of Latvia, as respondents were randomly drawn from different regions and industries. In total, the study sample (n = 8557) consisted of employees between 16 and 80 years old (average 42.8 +/− 12.6) of which 46.2% were males and 53.8% were females. Researchers used the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method for collecting data. The association between workplace conflicts and sickness absence was analysed by using binomial logistic regression and calculated as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), with adjustment for gender, age, education and survey year. The risk of sickness absence was higher among women (OR = 1.24, CI 1.13–1.35), employees aged 25–44 years old and employees with higher income. Controlling for socio-demographic factors and survey year, the odds of sickness absence increased significantly for all types of workplace conflict analysed. The strongest association with sickness absence was related to conflicts between managers and employees (OR = 1.51, CI 1.37–1.66) and conflicts between groups of employees (OR = 1.45, CI 1.31–1.61). Conflicts between employees and with customers also increased the odds of sickness absence (OR = 1.39, CI 1.27–1.52 and OR = 1.11, CI 1.01–1.23, respectively). Our findings suggest that tailored interventions at a company level for reducing workplace conflicts as risk factors of sickness absence are required. Those should focus on the improvement of managers’ leadership and human resource management skills.

The study’s objective was to investigate the associations between workplace conflicts and self-reported sickness presenteeism defined as going to work while being ill. Cross-sectional survey data pooled from four national surveys in years 2006, 2010, 2013 and 2018 with a study sample of 6368 employees (mean age 42.9 years and 52.9% females) were used. Respondents were randomly drawn from different regions and industries; therefore, the sample is representative of the working population of Latvia. The computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) method was used to collect data at respondents’ places of residence. The associations between conflicts in the workplace and presenteeism were analyzed by using binomial logistic regression and calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted (aOR) for gender, age, education, and survey year. On average, 11% of respondents reported sickness presenteeism during the last year. The odds of presenteeism significantly increased for all types of workplace conflicts, but most for conflicts with managers (OR = 2.84). The odds of presenteeism doubled for those reporting conflicts with other employees (OR = 2.19) and conflicts with customers (OR = 1.85). The odds of sickness presenteeism were significantly higher if the workplace conflicts occurred often (seven times for conflicts between managers and employees, and four times for conflicts with customers) and with other employees. Presenteeism frequency increased more than three times if respondents had more than two types of conflict at work. The results of this study show that having any type of conflict in the workplace significantly increases the frequency of sickness presenteeism, especially when conflicts are frequent or an employee has more types of conflicts in the workplace. The study results justify the need to implement targeted and effective workplace conflict management measures at the organizational level to decrease sickness presenteeism.

This article investigates the legal database and theoretical basis of workplace health promotion (WHP) in three European countries: Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and aims to find insights into effective WHP implementation. In November 2013, a stakeholders’ survey was carried out. The questionnaire included questions about legal documents and non-legislative measures relevant to WHP, institutions and other bodies/organizations working in the field, WHP conception/definition, and implementation of WHP activities according to the enterprises’ size. Only Finland has adopted a specific law on occupational health care (separate from occupational safety). ILO conventions No. 161 (Occupational Health Services Convention) and No. 187 (Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention) are ratified only in Finland. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health acts as one ministry, while two Baltic countries have two separate ministries (one for health and another for social affairs). None of the countries has legally approved a definition of WHP. Latvia and Lithuania tend to separate WHP from other activities, whereas Finland integrates WHP into other occupational health and safety elements. Finland has a more extensive legislative and organizational background to WHP than Latvia and Lithuania. In defining WHP, all the countries refer to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union. Finland’s practice of integrating WHP into other occupational health and safety elements is important.

Introduction: Sickness presenteeism—working despite being ill—is influenced by work demands, personal circumstances, and socio-demographic factors. This study investigates the prevalence of sickness presenteeism and its self-reported reasons across socio-demographic groups in Latvia.Methods: Data were pooled from four consecutive cross-sectional surveys conducted from 2006 to 2018, representing a sample of 6,368 hired workers. Logistic regression was used to assess associations between presenteeism and socio-demographic variables (gender, age, education, income, and job position), while chi-squared tests examined differences in reasons for presenteeism.Results: Overall, 11% of respondents reported working while ill in the past year. The most common reasons were a lack of replacement possibilities (27.7%), financial considerations (25.5%), specific work-related aspects (17.4%), and mild illness (14.0%). Significant socio-demographic differences were observed, with gender, income level, and job position influencing the reasons for presenteeism.Discussion: These findings underscore the need for targeted workplace policies, including strategies to address replacement gaps, financial insecurity, and job-related pressures. Future research should explore cross-national comparisons and the impact of evolving work patterns, such as telework, on presenteeism trends.

There are many factors that affect the well-being and health of employees and the productivity of organisations. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the Metal Age training programme (MA^®) on the well-being of office workers, including investigation of work ability, the stress-causing factors and role of leadership. The study was carried out using questions from four international questionnaires about stress, leadership, and work ability. The intervention group had a training course between the surveys using the ME^® method. Several employee stress-causing factors were identified: bad relationship with their workmates was mentioned by 94% of workers; competitive and strenuous atmosphere — by more than 80%; psychological violence or bullying at the workplace by more than 80%, and more than 75% of employee’s could not relax after work. Wellness and microclimate in the workplaces were on a relatively high level: the average rating of seven Kiva questions was 7.5. The respondent attitude after ME^® did not change significantly. Latvian office workers displayed moderate and good work ability (Work Ability Index, WAI 34.5–38.6). The best work ability was shown in the age group from 20 to 49 (WAI 34.8–39.4); work ability decreased with age. The best correlation was observed between Work Ability Index and “get into situations, that invoke negative feelings” (r = 0.26) and “carrying out ongoing tasks because of other intervening or more urgent matters” (r = −0.24). After ME^® the reaction to some stress-causing factors was improved.