Workplace absenteeism is measured in several different ways, including working hours lost, workers absent during a reference week, and employer-reported injury cases involving days away. The latest figures below cover UK workers in 2024, U.S. workers in 2024, U.S. occupational cases in 2023–2024, and European economic evaluations from a systematic review.
Key Workplace Absenteeism Statistics
The most useful headline figures span scale, causes, workforce characteristics, occupational injuries and measured costs:
- In 2024, UK workers lost 148.9 million working days to sickness or injury among workers aged 16 and over.
- In 2024, the UK sickness absence rate was 2.0% of working hours for workers aged 16 and over.
- In 2024, UK workers lost an average of 4.4 days each to sickness.
- In 2024, the U.S. full-time absence rate was 3.2% for wage-and-salary workers aged 16 and over.
- In 2024, illness or injury represented a 2.2% U.S. full-time absence rate.
- In 2024, U.S. full-time lost worktime was 1.7% of usually worked hours.
- In 2024, minor illnesses represented 30.0% of UK sickness-absence occurrences.
- In 2024, musculoskeletal problems represented 15.5% of UK sickness-absence occurrences.
- In 2024, the UK long-term-health-condition sickness absence rate was 4.0% among workers with those conditions.
- In 2024, UK women’s sickness absence rate was 2.5%, compared with 1.6% for men.
- In 2024, UK public-sector sickness absence was 2.9%, compared with 1.8% in the private sector.
- In 2024, UK part-time workers had a 2.6% sickness absence rate, compared with 1.9% for full-time workers.
- In 2024, UK elementary occupations had a 2.9% sickness absence rate, the highest among major occupation groups.
- In 2024, U.S. private industry recorded 888,100 cases involving days away from work.
- In 2024, the median days away from work was 8 for U.S. private-industry cases involving days away.
- In 2023–2024, U.S. private-industry DAFW cases occurred at an annualized rate of 86.6 per 10,000 FTE workers.
- In the European review, indirect costs represented a median 88.2% of total observed costs across 27 worksite health-promotion studies.
- In the same review, 9 of 21 cost-benefit analyses reported a financial benefit.
Contents
- Overall workplace absenteeism scale and trends
- Absence reasons and health-condition data
- Sex, age and long-term-health differences
- Sector, occupation and work-pattern statistics
- Work-related injuries and days away
- Absenteeism costs, productivity and measured outcomes
Overall Workplace Absenteeism Scale and Trends
The UK and U.S. figures use different denominators. The UK Labour Force Survey reports the percentage of working hours lost, while the U.S. Current Population Survey reports full-time workers absent in a reference week and separately reports lost worktime as a percentage of usually worked hours.
| Measure | Period and population | Result |
|---|---|---|
| UK sickness absence rate | 2024, workers aged 16+ | 2.0% of working hours |
| UK sickness-related days lost | 2024, workers aged 16+ | 148.9 million days |
| UK days lost per worker | 2024, workers aged 16+ | 4.4 days |
| U.S. full-time absence rate | 2024 annual average, wage-and-salary workers aged 16+ | 3.2% |
| U.S. full-time lost worktime | 2024 annual average | 1.7% of usually worked hours |
The Office for National Statistics report estimates that the UK rate fell 0.3 percentage points from 2.3% in 2023 to 2.0% in 2024. Days lost fell by 14.9 million, and days lost per worker fell by 0.5 days.
The 2024 UK rate was 0.1 percentage points above 2019, while days lost were 9.9 million higher and days lost per worker were 0.2 days higher than in 2019. ONS notes that the estimates are official statistics in development, smaller achieved Labour Force Survey samples increase volatility, and reweighting creates a discontinuity from 2019 onward.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024 annual-average table covers 119.988 million full-time wage-and-salary workers aged 16 and over. Its absence rate is a Current Population Survey reference-week measure, excludes self-employed workers, and is not an annual-days-absent measure.
Illness or injury accounted for a 2.2% U.S. full-time absence rate, while other reasons accounted for 1.0%. Illness or injury represented 1.1% of usually worked hours lost, and other reasons represented 0.6%; BLS excludes vacation, holidays and labor disputes from the absence definition.
Workplace Absenteeism by Absence Reason and Health Condition
The UK data show the composition of sickness-absence occurrences rather than the share of total days lost. In 2024, the largest named category was minor illness at 30.0%, followed by musculoskeletal problems at 15.5%.
| UK reason or condition | 2024 share of sickness-absence occurrences |
|---|---|
| Minor illnesses | 30.0% |
| Musculoskeletal problems | 15.5% |
| Other conditions | 15.1% |
| Mental-health conditions | 9.8% |
| Respiratory conditions | 7.3% |
These categories are reported in the ONS sickness-absence statistics. The musculoskeletal category includes back, neck, upper-limb and other musculoskeletal problems, while “other conditions” includes several conditions outside the named top-five groups.
The figures should not be read as diagnosed prevalence rates or as shares of days lost. They describe reported absence occurrences, and the supplied measure does not infer how multiple reasons contribute to one occurrence.
Long-term health is associated with a marked difference in the UK hours-lost measure. In 2024, workers with long-term health conditions had a 4.0% sickness absence rate, compared with 1.0% for workers without long-term health conditions.
The long-term-health-condition rate fell 0.6 percentage points from 2023 to 2024, while the rate for workers without long-term health conditions fell 0.1 percentage points. ONS describes the grouping as self-reported and cautions that the comparison is not causal.
Workplace Absenteeism by Sex, Age and Long-Term Health
Sex and age differences are visible in both the UK and U.S. measures, but the surveys are not directly comparable because their populations and definitions differ.
In the UK, women’s sickness absence rate was 2.5% in 2024, compared with 1.6% for men. Women aged 16–24 had a 1.6% rate, up 0.3 percentage points from 2023; ONS warns that small age-sex subgroup estimates may be volatile.
The BLS annual-average absence table reports a 4.3% absence rate for U.S. full-time workers aged 16–19 and 3.2% for those aged 25–54 in 2024. These are reference-week absence rates for full-time wage-and-salary workers, not annual days lost.
The UK long-term-health figures add a population distinction that matters when interpreting the overall rate: 4.0% of working hours were lost among workers with long-term health conditions, versus 1.0% among workers without them. The difference is descriptive and does not establish that the health grouping alone caused the absence gap.
Workplace Absenteeism by Sector, Occupation and Work Pattern
In 2024, UK public-sector workers had a 2.9% sickness absence rate, compared with 1.8% for private-sector workers. ONS cautions that sector mix and sick-pay differences affect the comparison, so it should not be treated as causal.
Work pattern also mattered in the 2024 UK estimate: part-time workers had a 2.6% rate, compared with 1.9% for full-time workers. Job and demographic composition can influence the part-time comparison.
| UK subgroup | 2024 sickness absence rate, working hours lost |
|---|---|
| Public sector | 2.9% |
| Private sector | 1.8% |
| Part-time workers | 2.6% |
| Full-time workers | 1.9% |
| Elementary occupations | 2.9% |
| Managers and senior officials | 1.3% |
Among major occupation groups, elementary occupations had the highest rate at 2.9%, while managers and senior officials had the lowest at 1.3%. The ONS source describes these as occupation comparisons, not causal estimates.
Regional variation was also reported. The South West had the highest UK country or English-region rate at 2.4%, while the East of England and London each had a 1.5% rate; London’s job and age mix affects interpretation.
Work-Related Injuries, Days Away and Absence Data
U.S. employer-reported occupational injury and illness measures capture a narrower part of absenteeism than general sickness surveys. DAFW means days away from work, DJTR includes job transfer or restricted work without necessarily involving days away, and DART combines DAFW and DJTR.
U.S. private industry recorded 888,100 DAFW cases in 2024, with a median of 8 days away. It also recorded 2,488,400 total recordable cases, which include cases without absence and therefore are not equivalent to absenteeism, according to the BLS 2024 annual release.
| Occupational measure | Period | Result |
|---|---|---|
| DAFW cases | 2023–2024 | 1,834,600 cases |
| DAFW annualized incidence | 2023–2024 | 86.6 per 10,000 FTE workers per year |
| DAFW median days away | 2023–2024 | 8 days |
| DJTR cases | 2023–2024 | 1,148,510 cases |
| DJTR annualized incidence | 2023–2024 | 54.2 per 10,000 FTE workers |
The BLS selected-event table reports 946,290 DART cases from overexertion, repetitive motion and bodily conditions in 2023–2024. Falls, slips and trips produced 479,480 DAFW cases at an annualized rate of 22.6 per 10,000 FTE workers, while overexertion, repetitive motion and bodily conditions had a 23.2 rate.
Exposure to harmful substances or environments produced 196,540 DAFW cases at 9.3 per 10,000 FTE workers. In that category, 87.6% of DART cases required at least one day away; coronavirus-novel DAFW cases had a 5.6 rate, including 32.4 in healthcare support occupations and 26.7 among healthcare practitioners and technical occupations.
Absenteeism Costs, Productivity and Measured Outcomes
Economic evidence is more heterogeneous than absence-rate evidence. A European systematic review of worksite health-promotion programs synthesized studies with different cost definitions, currencies, perspectives and follow-up periods.
Across 27 studies with sufficient direct and indirect cost data, indirect costs including absenteeism and presenteeism represented a median 88.2% of total observed costs. Direct intervention and healthcare costs represented a median 11.8%, according to the peer-reviewed review, Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of worksite health promotion programs in Europe.
Those percentages are study-set medians, not a universal employer cost split. They combine absenteeism and presenteeism in the indirect-cost category and should not be presented as a causal estimate of what every workplace loses.
The review also found mixed economic outcomes:
- Of 21 cost-benefit analyses, 9 reported a financial benefit and 9 reported a financial loss; three had unreported, perspective-dependent or mixed follow-up results.
- Of 23 cost-effectiveness analyses, 10 judged the intervention cost-effective and 10 did not; three reported uncertainty or dependence on willingness to pay.
These findings show why absenteeism outcomes need a defined population, measurement period, denominator and cost perspective. They also show that an intervention’s financial result cannot be inferred from an absence rate alone.