Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Alcohol‐ and drug‐related absenteeism: a costly problem

Alcohol‐ and drug‐related absenteeism: a costly problem use can negatively affect individuals, Ebusinesses and the wider community Objective: Absenteeism related to alcohol and other drug (AOD) use can place a substantial by reducing industry competitiveness burden on businesses and society. This study estimated the cost of AOD-related absenteeism in and productivity. In particular, workplace Australia using a nationally representative dataset. productivity can be adversely affected by Methods: A secondary analysis of the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (n=12,196) 1-4 absenteeism related to employee AOD use. was undertaken. Two measures of AOD-related absenteeism were used: participants’ self- Identifying the cost associated with AOD- reported absence due to AOD use (M1); and the mean difference in absence due to any illness/ related absenteeism is important, as it can injury for AOD users compared to abstainers (M2). Both figures were multiplied by $267.70 inform intervention and prevention efforts. (average day’s wage in 2013 plus 20% on-costs) to estimate associated costs. Previous estimates of the cost of alcohol- Results: M1 resulted in an estimation of 2.5 million days lost annually due to AOD use, at a cost related absenteeism in 2001 were between of more than $680 million. M2 resulted in an estimation of almost 11.5 million days lost, at a $437 million and $1.2 billion annually. Since cost of $3 billion. 2001, there has been a small but significant Conclusions: AOD-related absenteeism represents a significant and preventable impost upon decline in overall alcohol consumption Australian businesses. in Australia, which may affect rates of Implications: Workplaces should implement evidence-based interventions to promote healthy alcohol-related absenteeism. In addition, employee behaviour and reduce AOD-related absenteeism. previous estimates did not include illicit drug-related absenteeism. As about 16% of Key words: substance use, absenteeism, workplace Australian employees use illicit drugs on an annual basis, this is important to address. Measures wage plus 20% employer on-costs, based on This study sought to estimate the cost of the average weekly income in 2013). The AOD-related absenteeism in Australia using Absenteeism second measure (M2) calculated the amount of a 2013 nationally representative dataset, and Participants were asked to indicate the any illness/injury absenteeism attributable to including both alcohol- and drug-related number of days of work, school, TAFE or AOD use by estimating the mean difference in absenteeism. university they missed in the past three absence for those who used alcohol or drugs months for each of the following reasons: compared to abstainers. This figure was also alcohol consumption, drug use, injury or Methods multiplied by $267.70, as above. illness. Days missed due to injury and illness Dataset were combined into a single variable. Mean Alcohol and drug use A secondary analysis was conducted on the and total numbers of days missed due to Alcohol consumption was classified into four 2013 National Drug Strategy Household alcohol use, drug use, or any illness/injury mutually exclusive monthly consumption Survey (NDSHS), which examines awareness, were multiplied by four to determine annual categories. Low-risk drinking was defined attitudes and behaviour concerning alcohol, absence rates. as consumption of four or less standard tobacco and other drugs. The NDSHS uses drinks on a single occasion, risky drinking as Cost of absenteeism a multi-stage stratified sampling technique consumption of five to 10 standard drinks, and weights data to be representative of the Two measures of the cost of AOD-related and high-risk drinking as consumption of total Australian population. Full sampling and absenteeism were used. The first measure 11 or more standard drinks. Abstainers were weighting procedure details are available (M1) multiplied self-reported number of days defined as those who had never consumed a elsewhere. missed due to AOD use by $267.70 (one day’s full serve of alcohol. 1. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Flinders University, South Australia Correspondence to: Professor Ann Roche, National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia 5001; e-mail: ann.roche@flinders.edu.au Submitted: November 2014; Revision requested: January 2015; Accepted: March 2015 The authors have stated they have no conflict of interest. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2016; 40:236-8; doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12414 236 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2016 vol . 40 no . 3 © 2015 Public Health Association of Australia Alcohol Cost of AOD-related absenteeism Participants were asked to indicate frequency who reported being absent at least once These two costs are potentially additive. of use of 18 illicit drugs during the past 12 due to their alcohol use ranged from 0.5% That is, the cost of AOD-specific absenteeism months. Given the relatively low proportion (low risk drinkers) to 8.9% (high risk drinkers). may be in addition to the excess injury/ of participants who reported using most Rates of absence due to illicit drug use ranged illness absenteeism experienced by AOD drug types, a combined variable was created from 0.1% (lifetime users) to 3.5% (weekly users. However, it is possible that participants with five mutually exclusive categories users). This equated to an annual cost of interpreted and responded to these questions representing frequency of use of any illicit $451,920,699 and $228,748,846 for alcohol in such a way that M1 costs are subsumed drug (used in the past week/ past month/past and drugs, respectively. within M2 costs. Thus, treating these 12 months/ever/never). figures as separate and distinct is the more When excess illness/injury absenteeism conservative approach. attributed to AOD use was calculated (M2), Analyses drinkers were absent for approximately Limitations Descriptive analyses were conducted 7,554,436 more days annually than abstainers, using complex samples in SPSS version 22 resulting in a cost of $2,022,322,758. Workers Both measures used in this study are subject to calculate absence due to alcohol use, who had used illicit drugs were absent for to inherent limitations. Individuals may not drug use, and illness/injury for each level about 3,920,968 more days annually than always be aware of whether an absence was of consumption. Only data from employed those who had never used drugs, equating to attributable to AOD use, thus introducing a participants aged ≥15 years (n=12,196) was $1,049,643,262 (Table 1). degree of inaccuracy into M1. In addition, included. systematic differences exist between abstainers and AOD-users that are not related Conclusions to AOD use but may nonetheless influence Results absence rates (e.g. smoking status, mental This study analysed data from the 2013 health). These differences may have artificially NDSHS to update and extend previous The sample comprised 56.3% males and inflated M2’s estimation. estimations of the cost of AOD-related 43.7% females, with a mean age of 41.1 years absenteeism in Australia. Two complementary (SE: 0.18). Most drank alcohol at low-risk levels measures of AOD-related absenteeism (56.1%), 26.6% at risky levels, 9.3% at high-risk Implications and associated costs were used. M1 asked levels and 8% abstained. Most had never used participants to self-report the number of any illicit drug (49.5%) or had not used within These results demonstrate the extremely high days they were absent due to AOD use. This the past year (34.9%). A total of 7.3% used costs associated with alcohol- and drug- resulted in an estimation of 2.5 million days drugs yearly, 2.9% did so monthly, and 5.4% related absenteeism in Australia. In particular, lost annually, at a cost of more than $680 did so weekly. they highlight the amount of absence million. M2 estimated the mean difference attributable to infrequent drug users. Due Participants self-reported missing a total of in any illness/injury absence for AOD users to the size of this population, even a small 1,688,161 days due to alcohol and 854,497 compared to abstainers. This resulted in an proportion of individuals reporting drug- days due to drug use (M1). Rates of absence estimation of almost 11.5 million days lost related absence corresponds with a large increased with riskier/more frequent annually, at a cost of $3 billion. number of days lost. Workplaces wishing to consumption. The proportion of individuals Table 1: Prevalence of AOD-related absenteeism and associated costs. M1: Self-reported absence due to AOD use M2: Amount of any illness/injury absence attributable to AOD use a b c d Consumption Estimated % Absent due Total days Cost (AU$) Mean days Difference Excess absence Cost (AU$) pattern population to AOD Use absent due to absent due to AOD use illness/injury Alcohol Abstainers 755,279 - - - 7.90 - - - Low risk 5,306,854 0.5 172,357 46,139,968.90 8.56 0.66 3,502,523.64 937,625,578.43 Risky 2,517,914 3.5 637,335 170,614,579.50 8.91 1.01 2,543,093.14 680,786,033.58 High risk 877,221 8.9 878,469 235,166,151.30 9.62 1.72 1,508,820.12 403,911,146.12 Total 1,688,161 451,920,699.70 7,554,436.90 2,022,322,758.13 Illicit Drugs Abstainers 4,841,760 - - 8.24 - - - Lifetime use 3,414,971 0.1 138,444 37,061,458.80 8.34 0.10 341,497.10 91,418,773.67 543,167 145,405,805.90 10.69 2.45 1,758,622.25 470,783,176.33 Yearly use 717,805 0.9 Monthly use 285,511 2.7 50,467 13,510,015.90 9.59 1.35 385,439.85 103,182,247.85 Weekly use 523,872 3.5 122,419 32,771,566.30 10.98 2.74 1,435,409.28 384,259,064.26 Total 854,497 228,748,846.90 3,920,968.48 1,049,643,262.10 Total AOD Use 2,542,658 680,669,546.60 11,475,405.38 3,071,966,020.23 Note: Absence is not seasonally adjusted. a: Number of days lost due to self-reported AOD use multiplied by $267.70 (2013 average daily wage plus 20% employer on-costs) b: Mean days absent due to any illness/injury for risk category minus mean days absent for abstainers c: Difference in mean absence multiplied by estimated population d: Excess absence multiplied by $267.70 (2013 average daily wage plus 20% employer on-costs) 2016 vol . 40 no . 3 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 237 © 2015 Public Health Association of Australia Roche, Pidd and Kostadinov reduce the substantial impost associated with AOD-related absenteeism are advised to implement evidence-based strategies to promote healthy employee behaviour. As a first step in this direction, it is recommended that organisations develop and implement a formal AOD policy, provide education and training regarding AOD use, and provide access to counselling and treatment. References 1. Beemsterboer W, Stewart R, Groothoff J, Nijhuis F. A literature review on sick leave determinants (1984- 2004). Int J Occup Environ Med. 2009;22(2):169-79. 2. McFarlin SK, Fals-Stewart W. Workplace Absenteeism and Alcohol Use: A Sequential Analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;16(1):17-21. 3. Roche AM, Pidd K, Berry JG, Harrison JE. Workers’ drinking patterns: The impact on absenteeism in the Australian work-place. Addiction. 2008;103:738-48. 4. Salonsalmi A, Laaksonen M, Lahelma E, Rahkonen O. Drinking habits and sickness absence: The contribution of working conditions. Scand J Public Health. 2009;37:846-54. 5. Pidd KJ, Berry JG, Roche AM, Harrison JE. Estimating the cost of alcohol-related absenteeism in the Australian workforce: the importance of consumption patterns. Med J Aust. 2006;185:637-41. 6. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey Report. Canberra (AUST): AIHW; 2011. 7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2013 Final Technical Report. Canberra (AUST): AIHW; 2014. 8. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 6302.0 - Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, Nov 2013. Canberra (AUST): ABS; 9. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Alcohol Guidelines: Health Risks and Benefits. Canberra (AUST): AIHW; 2001. 10. Pidd K, Roche AM. Workplace Alcohol and Other Drug Programs: What is Good Practice? Melbourne (AUST): Australian Drug Foundation; 2012. 238 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2016 vol . 40 no . 3 © 2015 Public Health Association of Australia http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health Wiley

Alcohol‐ and drug‐related absenteeism: a costly problem

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/alcohol-and-drug-related-absenteeism-a-costly-problem-wH0iu55a2W

References (14)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2016 Public Health Association of Australia
ISSN
1326-0200
eISSN
1753-6405
DOI
10.1111/1753-6405.12414
pmid
26260411
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

use can negatively affect individuals, Ebusinesses and the wider community Objective: Absenteeism related to alcohol and other drug (AOD) use can place a substantial by reducing industry competitiveness burden on businesses and society. This study estimated the cost of AOD-related absenteeism in and productivity. In particular, workplace Australia using a nationally representative dataset. productivity can be adversely affected by Methods: A secondary analysis of the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (n=12,196) 1-4 absenteeism related to employee AOD use. was undertaken. Two measures of AOD-related absenteeism were used: participants’ self- Identifying the cost associated with AOD- reported absence due to AOD use (M1); and the mean difference in absence due to any illness/ related absenteeism is important, as it can injury for AOD users compared to abstainers (M2). Both figures were multiplied by $267.70 inform intervention and prevention efforts. (average day’s wage in 2013 plus 20% on-costs) to estimate associated costs. Previous estimates of the cost of alcohol- Results: M1 resulted in an estimation of 2.5 million days lost annually due to AOD use, at a cost related absenteeism in 2001 were between of more than $680 million. M2 resulted in an estimation of almost 11.5 million days lost, at a $437 million and $1.2 billion annually. Since cost of $3 billion. 2001, there has been a small but significant Conclusions: AOD-related absenteeism represents a significant and preventable impost upon decline in overall alcohol consumption Australian businesses. in Australia, which may affect rates of Implications: Workplaces should implement evidence-based interventions to promote healthy alcohol-related absenteeism. In addition, employee behaviour and reduce AOD-related absenteeism. previous estimates did not include illicit drug-related absenteeism. As about 16% of Key words: substance use, absenteeism, workplace Australian employees use illicit drugs on an annual basis, this is important to address. Measures wage plus 20% employer on-costs, based on This study sought to estimate the cost of the average weekly income in 2013). The AOD-related absenteeism in Australia using Absenteeism second measure (M2) calculated the amount of a 2013 nationally representative dataset, and Participants were asked to indicate the any illness/injury absenteeism attributable to including both alcohol- and drug-related number of days of work, school, TAFE or AOD use by estimating the mean difference in absenteeism. university they missed in the past three absence for those who used alcohol or drugs months for each of the following reasons: compared to abstainers. This figure was also alcohol consumption, drug use, injury or Methods multiplied by $267.70, as above. illness. Days missed due to injury and illness Dataset were combined into a single variable. Mean Alcohol and drug use A secondary analysis was conducted on the and total numbers of days missed due to Alcohol consumption was classified into four 2013 National Drug Strategy Household alcohol use, drug use, or any illness/injury mutually exclusive monthly consumption Survey (NDSHS), which examines awareness, were multiplied by four to determine annual categories. Low-risk drinking was defined attitudes and behaviour concerning alcohol, absence rates. as consumption of four or less standard tobacco and other drugs. The NDSHS uses drinks on a single occasion, risky drinking as Cost of absenteeism a multi-stage stratified sampling technique consumption of five to 10 standard drinks, and weights data to be representative of the Two measures of the cost of AOD-related and high-risk drinking as consumption of total Australian population. Full sampling and absenteeism were used. The first measure 11 or more standard drinks. Abstainers were weighting procedure details are available (M1) multiplied self-reported number of days defined as those who had never consumed a elsewhere. missed due to AOD use by $267.70 (one day’s full serve of alcohol. 1. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Flinders University, South Australia Correspondence to: Professor Ann Roche, National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia 5001; e-mail: ann.roche@flinders.edu.au Submitted: November 2014; Revision requested: January 2015; Accepted: March 2015 The authors have stated they have no conflict of interest. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2016; 40:236-8; doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12414 236 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2016 vol . 40 no . 3 © 2015 Public Health Association of Australia Alcohol Cost of AOD-related absenteeism Participants were asked to indicate frequency who reported being absent at least once These two costs are potentially additive. of use of 18 illicit drugs during the past 12 due to their alcohol use ranged from 0.5% That is, the cost of AOD-specific absenteeism months. Given the relatively low proportion (low risk drinkers) to 8.9% (high risk drinkers). may be in addition to the excess injury/ of participants who reported using most Rates of absence due to illicit drug use ranged illness absenteeism experienced by AOD drug types, a combined variable was created from 0.1% (lifetime users) to 3.5% (weekly users. However, it is possible that participants with five mutually exclusive categories users). This equated to an annual cost of interpreted and responded to these questions representing frequency of use of any illicit $451,920,699 and $228,748,846 for alcohol in such a way that M1 costs are subsumed drug (used in the past week/ past month/past and drugs, respectively. within M2 costs. Thus, treating these 12 months/ever/never). figures as separate and distinct is the more When excess illness/injury absenteeism conservative approach. attributed to AOD use was calculated (M2), Analyses drinkers were absent for approximately Limitations Descriptive analyses were conducted 7,554,436 more days annually than abstainers, using complex samples in SPSS version 22 resulting in a cost of $2,022,322,758. Workers Both measures used in this study are subject to calculate absence due to alcohol use, who had used illicit drugs were absent for to inherent limitations. Individuals may not drug use, and illness/injury for each level about 3,920,968 more days annually than always be aware of whether an absence was of consumption. Only data from employed those who had never used drugs, equating to attributable to AOD use, thus introducing a participants aged ≥15 years (n=12,196) was $1,049,643,262 (Table 1). degree of inaccuracy into M1. In addition, included. systematic differences exist between abstainers and AOD-users that are not related Conclusions to AOD use but may nonetheless influence Results absence rates (e.g. smoking status, mental This study analysed data from the 2013 health). These differences may have artificially NDSHS to update and extend previous The sample comprised 56.3% males and inflated M2’s estimation. estimations of the cost of AOD-related 43.7% females, with a mean age of 41.1 years absenteeism in Australia. Two complementary (SE: 0.18). Most drank alcohol at low-risk levels measures of AOD-related absenteeism (56.1%), 26.6% at risky levels, 9.3% at high-risk Implications and associated costs were used. M1 asked levels and 8% abstained. Most had never used participants to self-report the number of any illicit drug (49.5%) or had not used within These results demonstrate the extremely high days they were absent due to AOD use. This the past year (34.9%). A total of 7.3% used costs associated with alcohol- and drug- resulted in an estimation of 2.5 million days drugs yearly, 2.9% did so monthly, and 5.4% related absenteeism in Australia. In particular, lost annually, at a cost of more than $680 did so weekly. they highlight the amount of absence million. M2 estimated the mean difference attributable to infrequent drug users. Due Participants self-reported missing a total of in any illness/injury absence for AOD users to the size of this population, even a small 1,688,161 days due to alcohol and 854,497 compared to abstainers. This resulted in an proportion of individuals reporting drug- days due to drug use (M1). Rates of absence estimation of almost 11.5 million days lost related absence corresponds with a large increased with riskier/more frequent annually, at a cost of $3 billion. number of days lost. Workplaces wishing to consumption. The proportion of individuals Table 1: Prevalence of AOD-related absenteeism and associated costs. M1: Self-reported absence due to AOD use M2: Amount of any illness/injury absence attributable to AOD use a b c d Consumption Estimated % Absent due Total days Cost (AU$) Mean days Difference Excess absence Cost (AU$) pattern population to AOD Use absent due to absent due to AOD use illness/injury Alcohol Abstainers 755,279 - - - 7.90 - - - Low risk 5,306,854 0.5 172,357 46,139,968.90 8.56 0.66 3,502,523.64 937,625,578.43 Risky 2,517,914 3.5 637,335 170,614,579.50 8.91 1.01 2,543,093.14 680,786,033.58 High risk 877,221 8.9 878,469 235,166,151.30 9.62 1.72 1,508,820.12 403,911,146.12 Total 1,688,161 451,920,699.70 7,554,436.90 2,022,322,758.13 Illicit Drugs Abstainers 4,841,760 - - 8.24 - - - Lifetime use 3,414,971 0.1 138,444 37,061,458.80 8.34 0.10 341,497.10 91,418,773.67 543,167 145,405,805.90 10.69 2.45 1,758,622.25 470,783,176.33 Yearly use 717,805 0.9 Monthly use 285,511 2.7 50,467 13,510,015.90 9.59 1.35 385,439.85 103,182,247.85 Weekly use 523,872 3.5 122,419 32,771,566.30 10.98 2.74 1,435,409.28 384,259,064.26 Total 854,497 228,748,846.90 3,920,968.48 1,049,643,262.10 Total AOD Use 2,542,658 680,669,546.60 11,475,405.38 3,071,966,020.23 Note: Absence is not seasonally adjusted. a: Number of days lost due to self-reported AOD use multiplied by $267.70 (2013 average daily wage plus 20% employer on-costs) b: Mean days absent due to any illness/injury for risk category minus mean days absent for abstainers c: Difference in mean absence multiplied by estimated population d: Excess absence multiplied by $267.70 (2013 average daily wage plus 20% employer on-costs) 2016 vol . 40 no . 3 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 237 © 2015 Public Health Association of Australia Roche, Pidd and Kostadinov reduce the substantial impost associated with AOD-related absenteeism are advised to implement evidence-based strategies to promote healthy employee behaviour. As a first step in this direction, it is recommended that organisations develop and implement a formal AOD policy, provide education and training regarding AOD use, and provide access to counselling and treatment. References 1. Beemsterboer W, Stewart R, Groothoff J, Nijhuis F. A literature review on sick leave determinants (1984- 2004). Int J Occup Environ Med. 2009;22(2):169-79. 2. McFarlin SK, Fals-Stewart W. Workplace Absenteeism and Alcohol Use: A Sequential Analysis. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;16(1):17-21. 3. Roche AM, Pidd K, Berry JG, Harrison JE. Workers’ drinking patterns: The impact on absenteeism in the Australian work-place. Addiction. 2008;103:738-48. 4. Salonsalmi A, Laaksonen M, Lahelma E, Rahkonen O. Drinking habits and sickness absence: The contribution of working conditions. Scand J Public Health. 2009;37:846-54. 5. Pidd KJ, Berry JG, Roche AM, Harrison JE. Estimating the cost of alcohol-related absenteeism in the Australian workforce: the importance of consumption patterns. Med J Aust. 2006;185:637-41. 6. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey Report. Canberra (AUST): AIHW; 2011. 7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2013 Final Technical Report. Canberra (AUST): AIHW; 2014. 8. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 6302.0 - Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, Nov 2013. Canberra (AUST): ABS; 9. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian Alcohol Guidelines: Health Risks and Benefits. Canberra (AUST): AIHW; 2001. 10. Pidd K, Roche AM. Workplace Alcohol and Other Drug Programs: What is Good Practice? Melbourne (AUST): Australian Drug Foundation; 2012. 238 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2016 vol . 40 no . 3 © 2015 Public Health Association of Australia

Journal

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public HealthWiley

Published: Jun 1, 2016

Keywords: ; ;

There are no references for this article.