Background: Occupational mental health, work environment, sleep health, presenteeism, and loss of work productivity caused by health problems are all public health concerns. Although sleep affects mental health and presenteeism, the associations between sleep disturbance, job stressors, stress responses, and presenteeism have remained unclear. We hypothesized that job stressors affect the presenteeism of office workers through sleep disturbance and analyzed the association among these factors. Subjects and Methods: In 2017, a cross-sectional survey of adult office workers was performed. A total of 2899 subjects who provided written consent were included in the analysis. The survey collected demographic information, as well as the Work Limitation Questionnaire (WLQ), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ). Associations between each of the variables were analyzed by path analysis (covariance structure analysis). This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tokyo Medical University. Results: The path analysis demonstrated that job stressors, psychological and physical stress response (PPSR) in the BJSQ, and sleep disturbance in the PSQI had direct effects on presenteeism in the WLQ. Both job stressors and social support in the BJSQ indirectly affected presenteeism through effects on sleep disturbance and PPSR. Sleep disturbance indirectly affected presenteeism via PPSR. This model accounted for the variation of presenteeism (R 2 = 0.322). Conclusion: In the workplace, job stressors and low social support increase presenteeism through psychological and physical stress responses, as well as sleep disturbance. Evaluating and resolving work problems and sleep disturbance would hence be beneficial from the aspects of public health and socioeconomics.

Background: The complex interaction between parenting styles, job stressors, and the stress response has not been clarified to date. We hypothesized that neuroticism acts as a mediator in the effects of parenting quality on perceived job stressors and the psychological and physical stress response (PPSR), and tested this hypothesis using covariance structure analysis. Subjects and Methods: We conducted research between April 2017 and April 2018 on 597 adult from the community, and 69 subjects were excluded owing to missing data or nonworkers. Finally, a total of 528 participants were analyzed using the following selfadministered questionnaires: the Parental Bonding Instrument, the shortened Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised, and the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ). The data were analyzed by single regression analyses and covariance structure analyses. Job stress was assessed by the BJSQ and 2 subscales, ie, perceived job stressors and the PPSR. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tokyo Medical University. Results: On covariance structure analysis, high parental overprotection was associated with high neuroticism and high PPSR directly, but had no significant effect on perceived job stressors. High parental overprotection was associated with high-perceived job stressors and the high PPSR indirectly through enhanced neuroticism. High parental overprotection was also associated with the high PPSR indirectly through 2 combined paths of neuroticism and perceived job stressors. This model accounted for 40% of the variability of the PPSR. On the other hand, parental care had opposite effects to parental overprotection, and this model of parental care accounted for 39% of the variability of PPSR. The model fits of the 2 models were good. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the quality of parenting in childhood is associated with perceived job stressors and the PPSR indirectly through neuroticism.

Background: Chronotype, which is a person's circadian characteristics throughout a day, greatly influences a person's lifestyle, health, and sleep pattern; however, the association between job stress and chronotype remains unknown to date. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed the effects of chronotype on the job stress response, and the mediating effects of sleep disturbance using path analysis. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 535 adult volunteers (239 men and 296 women; average age, 41.2 ± 11.9 years) from the community. Participants were evaluated using the Diurnal Type Scale for chronotype, Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index for sleep disturbance, Brief Job Stress Questionnaire for job stressors, and the psychological and physical stress response (PPSR). To investigate the association between chronotype, sleep disturbance, perceived job stressors, and PPSR, a covariance structure analysis was performed. Results: The eveningness chronotype had a significant weak direct effect on sleep disturbance, perceived job stressors, and PPSR, and had a significant indirect effect through sleep disturbance. The perceived job stressors indirectly increased PPSR through sleep disturbance. Sleep disturbance mediated the effects of the eveningness chronotype and perceived job stressors on PPSR. This model accounted for 37.3% of the variability in PPSR of adult workers. Conclusion: Chronotype affected PPSR through sleep disturbance. Therefore, improving the sleep disturbance of workers with the eveningness chronotype may reduce their stress response.