Use of benefits during pregnancy: a cohort study in four organisations in Spain.

BMJ public health Pub Date : 2025-04-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjph-2024-001730
Martina Lupia, Consol Serra, Rosa Serrano, Joan Inglés, Júlia Pratdesava, Pilar Peña, Xavier Duran, Pere Plana, Fernando G Benavides
{"title":"Use of benefits during pregnancy: a cohort study in four organisations in Spain.","authors":"Martina Lupia, Consol Serra, Rosa Serrano, Joan Inglés, Júlia Pratdesava, Pilar Peña, Xavier Duran, Pere Plana, Fernando G Benavides","doi":"10.1136/bmjph-2024-001730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To analyse the use of either sick leave (SL) benefit and/or pregnancy-related occupational risk (POR) benefit by workers taking work absence during pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohorts of working women from the beginning to the end of pregnancy in three public hospitals and one pharmaceutical company, between 2015 and 2019. We measured the frequency and duration of absences, by age and occupational variables, and cumulative absence days, classifying work status as at work, on SL and on POR absence. Differences between groups for each variable were analysed through the Kruskal-Wallis rank test followed by Dunn's Pairwise Comparisons. Sequence analysis was used to identify pregnancy trajectories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1116 pregnant workers, absence days due to SL ranged from 9.9% to 28.6% of total possible working days, from 9.2% to 38.4% due to POR, while only 3.9% did not take any absence. Nurse aides and nurses used benefits most often and for the longest duration with respect to other occupational categories (p value<0.001). Age had no statistically significant difference (p value=0.245). Three pregnancy trajectories were identified, characterised by mostly active work, active work combined with POR and active work with SL, with differences by workplace, occupation and work area (p value<0.001). The total time in days during which pregnant women were actively working ranged between 56% and 64% depending on the organisation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study in four organisations shows a very similar pattern regarding total time absent from work during pregnancy. Women were actively working for two-thirds of their pregnancy. Of the remaining time, while in two organisations, absences were mainly due to SL, in other two were due to POR. Organisational variations in the management of pregnant women could be an explanation. We need further investigation on this topic.</p>","PeriodicalId":101362,"journal":{"name":"BMJ public health","volume":"3 1","pages":"e001730"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12049962/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2024-001730","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To analyse the use of either sick leave (SL) benefit and/or pregnancy-related occupational risk (POR) benefit by workers taking work absence during pregnancy.

Methods: Retrospective cohorts of working women from the beginning to the end of pregnancy in three public hospitals and one pharmaceutical company, between 2015 and 2019. We measured the frequency and duration of absences, by age and occupational variables, and cumulative absence days, classifying work status as at work, on SL and on POR absence. Differences between groups for each variable were analysed through the Kruskal-Wallis rank test followed by Dunn's Pairwise Comparisons. Sequence analysis was used to identify pregnancy trajectories.

Results: Among 1116 pregnant workers, absence days due to SL ranged from 9.9% to 28.6% of total possible working days, from 9.2% to 38.4% due to POR, while only 3.9% did not take any absence. Nurse aides and nurses used benefits most often and for the longest duration with respect to other occupational categories (p value<0.001). Age had no statistically significant difference (p value=0.245). Three pregnancy trajectories were identified, characterised by mostly active work, active work combined with POR and active work with SL, with differences by workplace, occupation and work area (p value<0.001). The total time in days during which pregnant women were actively working ranged between 56% and 64% depending on the organisation.

Conclusions: This study in four organisations shows a very similar pattern regarding total time absent from work during pregnancy. Women were actively working for two-thirds of their pregnancy. Of the remaining time, while in two organisations, absences were mainly due to SL, in other two were due to POR. Organisational variations in the management of pregnant women could be an explanation. We need further investigation on this topic.

怀孕期间福利的使用:西班牙四个组织的队列研究。
目的:分析怀孕期间缺勤的工人使用病假(SL)福利和/或怀孕相关职业风险(POR)福利的情况。方法:对2015 - 2019年3家公立医院和1家制药公司妊娠初期至妊娠末期的职业女性进行回顾性队列研究。我们测量了缺勤的频率和持续时间,通过年龄和职业变量,以及累计缺勤天数,将工作状态分类为工作,SL和POR缺勤。通过Kruskal-Wallis秩检验和Dunn’s成对比较分析各组间各变量的差异。序列分析用于确定妊娠轨迹。结果:1116名孕妇中,因SL缺勤天数占总可能工作日的9.9% ~ 28.6%,因POR缺勤天数占9.2% ~ 38.4%,无缺勤天数仅占3.9%。与其他职业类别相比,护士助理和护士使用福利的频率最高,持续时间最长(p值)。结论:这项研究在四个组织中显示了非常相似的模式,即怀孕期间缺勤总时间。女性在怀孕的三分之二时间里积极工作。在剩下的时间里,在两个组织中,缺勤主要是由于SL,在另外两个组织中是由于POR。对孕妇管理的组织差异可能是一种解释。我们需要对这个问题作进一步的调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信