ScholarWorks@중앙대학교

초록

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically affected healthcare professionals globally. Presenteeism and workplace violence in the healthcare sector are global issues that exhibit different characteristics depending on the country. This study examined the prevalence and impact of workplace violence and presenteeism among healthcare professionals in Europe and South Korea by comparing data before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify regional differences. Methods This study analyzed secondary data from the sixth (2015) and seventh (2021) European Working Conditions Surveys and the fifth (2017) and sixth (2020) Korean Working Conditions Surveys. Healthcare professionals aged 18–65 years were identified using standardized occupational and industrial classification codes. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between variables, and pooled models with interaction terms were used to formally test whether the associations differed by region and time period. Results Workplace violence was more prevalent in Europe than in Korea, both before (27.6% vs. 10.3%) and during (16.3% vs. 8.8%) the pandemic. Presenteeism was consistently higher in Europe than in Korea but decreased in both regions during the pandemic, declining from 42.0% to 36.0% in Europe and 20.3% to 15.3% in Korea. Workplace violence significantly increased the odds of presenteeism in both regions. Although the association was attenuated during the COVID-19 pandemic, the interaction between violence and country was not statistically significant in the pooled analyses. Conclusions Workplace violence consistently predicted presenteeism across both regions and time periods. Although this association was attenuated during the pandemic, it showed no significant difference between Europe and Korea. Tailored interventions, such as zero-tolerance policies and supportive work environments, are essential for addressing these issues. Given the nonaligned survey years across regions, temporal comparisons should be interpreted with caution. Further longitudinal and time-aligned studies are needed to clarify causal mechanisms and contextual heterogeneity.

키워드