The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has reported a static trend in workforce health, revealing that the average number of sick days per worker in 2025 held steady compared to the preceding year. This consistent rate points to a broader challenge in improving employee well-being across the nation, despite increased focus on workplace health in recent years. The overall sickness absence rate for the year stood at 2.0%, translating to an average of 4.4 days lost per employee. Cumulatively, this amounted to a staggering 148.8 million working days forfeited due to illness or injury, a figure that has prompted a stark warning from public health advocates.
The Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) has characterized these figures as a "wake-up call," emphasizing a perceived failure among employers to significantly enhance the health and resilience of their workforces. This stagnation in absence rates, particularly in the wake of the transformative shifts brought about by the pandemic, underscores persistent issues in workplace support, public health infrastructure, and economic pressures on employees. The ONS data provides a granular view into the demographics and circumstances contributing to these absences, highlighting significant disparities across various groups and sectors.
Persistent Sickness Absence: A Detailed Breakdown
The ONS analysis meticulously delineates the groups most affected by sickness absence in 2025, revealing entrenched patterns of inequality. Women, for instance, consistently registered higher rates of absence, a trend often attributed to a combination of factors including gender-specific health issues, caregiving responsibilities, and a higher representation in sectors with less flexible working arrangements or lower pay. Similarly, older workers, typically defined as those approaching or beyond traditional retirement age, experienced elevated absence rates, reflecting the natural progression of age-related health conditions and potentially longer recovery times.
Individuals with long-term health conditions naturally formed a significant proportion of those with higher sickness absence. This group often faces complex challenges in managing their health alongside employment, necessitating more robust support systems, flexible working options, and understanding from employers. Beyond these core demographics, the ONS identified other segments reporting higher-than-average rates: part-time workers, public sector employees, and those engaged in physically demanding or repetitive roles such as process, plant, and machine operatives. These findings suggest a multifaceted problem, where employment type, sector, and job role intertwine with personal characteristics to influence health outcomes and absence patterns.
Post-Pandemic Trajectory and Historical Context
The current state of sickness absence cannot be fully understood without examining its trajectory in the post-pandemic era. The ONS data explicitly remarked that sickness absence rates surged above pre-pandemic levels in 2021. This increase coincided with a period when workplaces increasingly mandated a return to in-person working, following extensive periods of remote work during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. The transition back to physical workplaces, often accompanied by concerns about virus transmission, increased commuting stress, and potentially reduced flexibility, likely contributed to this initial spike.
The rates only began to show a slight decline in 2023, indicating a slow and gradual adjustment rather than a swift recovery. Despite this minor improvement, the current sickness absence rate remains 0.1 percentage points above what it was in 2019, the last full year before the pandemic’s onset. While the total number of days lost saw a marginal decrease from 148.9 million in 2024 to 148.8 million in 2025, this negligible change underscores the persistent challenge. This historical context suggests that while the immediate shock of the pandemic has subsided, its legacy, coupled with evolving work patterns and health priorities, continues to impact workforce health. The shift towards hybrid working models, while offering flexibility, has also introduced new considerations for managing employee well-being and absence, which employers are still navigating.
Primary Causes of Absence: A Medical Snapshot
Understanding the reasons behind these absences is crucial for developing targeted interventions. Minor illnesses continued to be the most prevalent cause, accounting for a substantial 30.4% of all occurrences. This category typically encompasses common colds, flu, and other short-term ailments, which, while individually minor, collectively contribute significantly to lost working days. This high percentage highlights the pervasive impact of seasonal illnesses and potentially inadequate preventative measures or early intervention strategies in workplaces.
Musculoskeletal conditions, often linked to ergonomic issues, physical strain, or repetitive tasks, were the second most common reason, responsible for 14.6% of absences. The prevalence of these conditions underscores the importance of proper workstation setup, regular movement, and occupational health support, particularly in industries involving manual labor or prolonged desk work. Mental health conditions, a growing concern in modern society, accounted for 8.9% of absences. This figure, while significant, is often considered an underestimate due to the stigma associated with reporting mental health issues and the potential for these conditions to manifest as physical symptoms. Lastly, gastrointestinal problems contributed to 6.6% of absences, reflecting another common category of short-term illness.
Age, Gender, and Regional Dynamics
Further dissecting the data reveals intriguing age- and gender-specific shifts in sickness absence rates between 2024 and 2025. Men aged over 65 years experienced the largest increase in sickness absence rate, with a notable 0.6 percentage point rise. This trend could be influenced by a variety of factors, including the increasing number of men working beyond traditional retirement age, potentially in more physically demanding roles, or with accumulated health issues. Conversely, women aged over 65 years showed the largest decrease in sickness absence rate, also by 0.6 percentage points. This divergence between older men and women warrants further investigation, potentially reflecting different patterns of retirement, types of employment, or access to healthcare and preventative measures in this demographic.
Regional variations also presented a mixed picture. The East of England and the North East both recorded the largest increases in sickness absence rates, each seeing a rise of 0.5 percentage points. These regional upticks could be indicative of localized health challenges, demographic shifts, or economic pressures impacting employment sectors dominant in these areas. In contrast, Wales registered the largest decrease in sickness absence rate, with a 0.4 percentage point reduction, suggesting potentially successful local health initiatives or different economic and employment structures that foster better workforce health.
London stood out with a significantly lower sickness absence rate of 1.2%, well below the national average. This exception is primarily attributed to two demographic factors: the capital’s generally younger age profile of workers and a higher concentration of skilled jobs. Younger workforces typically experience fewer age-related health issues, while skilled occupations often involve less physical strain, greater autonomy, and better access to resources, all of which tend to correlate with lower rates of sickness absence.
Sectoral Divides and Occupational Disparities
The ONS data starkly illustrates the disparity in sickness absence between the public and private sectors. Public sector workers recorded a sickness absence rate of 2.9%, substantially higher than the 1.7% observed in the private sector. This long-standing differential can be attributed to several factors. Public sector roles often include a higher proportion of frontline workers (e.g., healthcare, education, social care) who are more exposed to illness and stress. Furthermore, public sector employees typically have more generous sick pay entitlements and greater job security, which might make them more likely to take time off when genuinely unwell, compared to private sector counterparts who might face greater pressure to attend work even when sick.
Within occupational groups, clear distinctions emerged. Managers, directors, and senior officials were identified as the least likely to take a sick day, with an absence rate of just 1.0%. This low rate could be a reflection of job demands, a culture of presenteeism, higher levels of job control, or better access to resources that support health. At the other end of the spectrum, process, plant, and machine operatives recorded a significantly higher rate of 3.3%. These roles often involve physically demanding work, exposure to hazardous environments, or repetitive tasks, all of which contribute to a higher risk of injury and illness.
Expert Commentary and Policy Imperatives
Matthew Bazeley-Bell, deputy chief executive of the Royal Society for Public Health, articulated the collective concern, stating, "We have not seen progress in improving the health of the workforce." He critically highlighted the "stark inequalities between different population groups and employment sectors," asserting that these disparities are "not inevitable." Instead, he argued, they are "shaped by policy choices, workplace practices and how health and wellbeing is prioritised across working lives." Bazeley-Bell’s comments underscore the belief that workforce health is a malleable outcome, directly influenced by strategic decisions at both governmental and organizational levels.
He further urged that the measures outlined in the "Keep Britain Working review" must now transition from recommendations to tangible reality. The "Keep Britain Working review," an initiative aimed at identifying effective strategies for supporting employment and improving workplace health, presumably advocates for comprehensive health support systems, flexible working arrangements, and proactive well-being programmes. Bazeley-Bell concluded, "Workplaces can – and should – improve our health. But this will only happen when every employee has access to proper workplace health support." This statement calls for universal access to occupational health services, mental health support, and preventative health initiatives, rather than fragmented or ad-hoc provisions.
Asli Atay, senior policy adviser at the Work Foundation at Lancaster University, offered a complementary perspective, emphasizing the broader context of worker support. She argued that the stagnation in absence rates makes it "critical that reducing sickness absence is not the sole focus of policymakers – rather the aim must be to ensure all workers who fall ill have the support and financial security to take leave and recuperate when they need it." Atay’s point is crucial: simply driving down absence rates without addressing the underlying causes or supporting sick workers can lead to presenteeism – where employees come to work while unwell, potentially spreading illness and reducing productivity – rather than genuine improvements in health.
The Work Foundation’s own research provides compelling evidence for this concern, revealing that a striking 67% of employees have gone into work sick when they felt they should have taken time off. This widespread practice highlights a systemic issue where financial insecurity, fear of job loss, or excessive workload pressures compel individuals to prioritize attendance over recovery. Atay stressed the particular vulnerability of "groups who, on average, face higher levels of ill health, including women and older workers." For these demographics, the "stark choice between pushing through when unwell or taking the time off they need to manage their health condition" is even more pronounced, exacerbating existing health inequalities.
The Crucial Role of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP)
A pivotal aspect of financial security during illness is Statutory Sick Pay (SSP). The right to claim SSP from the first day of illness came into force on 6 April, a policy adjustment aimed at providing earlier financial relief to sick workers. Atay acknowledged this as an "important step forward," but quickly added that it "did not go far enough." Her critique stems from the UK’s relatively low rate of SSP compared to other European nations.
The UK’s SSP rate stands at a modest £123.25 per week. This figure is among the lowest in Europe, providing a minimal safety net that often falls significantly short of covering essential living costs. Atay pointed out that "nearly half of employers in the UK do not go beyond the statutory minimum," leaving a substantial portion of the workforce reliant on this inadequate sum. This situation forces many low-paid workers, or those in precarious employment, into the difficult choice of working while unwell or facing severe financial hardship.
Atay strongly advocated for governmental action, urging the "UK government to build on recent progress, and set out a roadmap for increasing the rate of SSP in order to help increase workforce participation and keep Britain working into the future." Increasing SSP would not only alleviate financial stress for sick workers but could also reduce presenteeism, facilitate quicker recovery, and ultimately contribute to a healthier and more productive workforce. By strengthening this fundamental social security measure, the government could signal a stronger commitment to worker well-being and long-term economic stability.
Broader Economic and Societal Implications
The stagnation in sickness absence rates carries significant economic and societal implications beyond individual worker well-being. From an economic perspective, 148.8 million days lost due to sickness represent a considerable drag on national productivity. Businesses face direct costs related to cover for absent staff, reduced output, and potential impacts on customer service and project delivery. Indirect costs, such as increased healthcare expenditure and the broader societal burden of chronic illness, further compound the challenge. The persistence of health inequalities, as highlighted by the ONS data, also means that certain communities and demographics are disproportionately affected, potentially widening socioeconomic gaps.
The "wake-up call" from the RSPH is not merely a call for better workplace practices but a broader plea for a more holistic approach to public health. Addressing the root causes of sickness absence requires integrated strategies involving government policy, employer initiatives, and individual responsibility. This includes investing in preventative healthcare, promoting healthier lifestyles, improving access to mental health services, and creating more supportive and flexible working environments. The challenge of keeping an aging population healthy and economically active also looms large, making effective management of sickness absence a critical component of future workforce planning.
In conclusion, the 2025 ONS report on sickness absence paints a picture of stagnation and persistent inequalities. While minor shifts occurred in specific demographics and regions, the overall rate remained stubbornly high, signaling that the lessons from the pandemic regarding worker health have yet to be fully integrated into policy and practice. The calls from public health experts and researchers for stronger workplace support, better mental health provisions, and a more robust Statutory Sick Pay system underscore the urgency of the situation. Moving forward, a concerted effort across all sectors will be essential to transform these static figures into a positive trend of improving workforce health and resilience, ensuring that Britain’s working population can thrive both economically and personally.
