What are the predictors and costs of nurse absenteeism at select multicenter government hospitals? A cross-sectional study.

Objectives: The purposes of this study were to determine the prevalence and cost of absenteeism in nurses as well as the factors that affect absenteeism. Methods: This is a cross sectional study where a self-administered questionnaire response were obtained from 442 nurses for the previous working in 4 hospitals and 3 primary health care centers in Saudi Arabia. Analyses compared those with zero absences with those with one or more absences per month. Attributable risk was calculated as the difference in the absence percentages among nurses with high-risk exposure and low risk exposure. Results: The average absence of nurses is 0.62 days per month. This results in an annual loss of around $4 million. The greatest absence frequency was significantly associated with work psychosocial factors. The modifiable factors included the clarity of work responsibilities, rating of managers, work facilities, work environment, transportation difficulties, and work satisfaction. Cost-effectiveness modules for absence intervention programs were built for these factors. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that nurse absenteeism is a costly issue related to work and psychosocial factors. Preventive programs to improve the quality of work life are likely to be cost effective.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Ergonomic Hazards Among Healthcare Workers in a Saudi Government Hospital.

Background: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) affecting healthcare workers (HCWs) must be considered and addressed as a serious issue. Thus, it is important to incorporate ergonomics into clinical practice to prevent MSDs. The objectives of this study were to investigate HCWs' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ergonomics in a large governmental healthcare facility. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in which the participants were interviewed to complete a validated four-section questionnaire (demographic data, knowledge, attitudes, and practice information related to ergonomics). The questionnaire was newly self-developed based on a literature review and was pilot tested after development. Results: This study included 273 HCWs. Their average knowledge score regarding ergonomics was 2.6, or "fair to good." Overall, the participants reported good attitude scores, with a total average score of 1 and 2, or "agree to strongly agree." The findings also indicated that appropriate ergonomics practices were often not implemented, as the average practice score was 1 to 2, or "always to sometimes engaging in bad practice." The risk factors of being Saudi, being a woman, and having low academic achievement were associated with poor knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to ergonomics among HCWs. Conclusion: This study showed that the majority of the participants had fair knowledge and good attitudes toward ergonomics at work while practicing. However, the practice of ergonomics at work was not implemented. It is important to apply ergonomics at work to prevent MSDs; therefore, ergonomic principles should be included in the undergraduate health curriculum for all HCWs, with emphasis on practicing ergonomics in their routine clinical work.