Abstract
Abstract Objectives: The aim of this study was (1) to perform a systematic literature review of instruments for measuring productivity loss of paid and unpaid work and (2) to assess the suitability (in terms of identification, measurement, and valuation) of these instruments for use in health economic evaluations from a societal perspective.
Methods: Papers published from 2018 were sourced from PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and Econlit. Using two separate search strategies, eligible economic evaluations and validation studies were selected and unique measurement instruments identified. A data-extraction form was developed by studying previous literature and consulting an international panel of experts in the field of productivity costs. This data-extraction form was applied to assess the suitability of instruments for use in economic evaluations.
Results: 5,982 articles were retrieved from the databases, of which 99 economic evaluations and nine validation studies were included in the review. Forty-two unique measurement instruments were identified. Nine instruments provided quantified measures of absenteeism, presenteeism, and unpaid work. Five instruments supplied the necessary information to enable the use of at least one common valuation method. The SF-HLQ, HLQ, and iPCQ met both criteria. However, the developers replaced the SF-HLQ and HLQ by the more recently developed iPCQ.
Conclusions: Although many instruments for measuring productivity loss were identified, most were not suitable for capturing productivity changes for economic evaluations from a societal perspective. Future research can benefit from this study by making an informed instrument choice for the measurement of productivity loss of paid and unpaid work
Methods: Papers published from 2018 were sourced from PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and Econlit. Using two separate search strategies, eligible economic evaluations and validation studies were selected and unique measurement instruments identified. A data-extraction form was developed by studying previous literature and consulting an international panel of experts in the field of productivity costs. This data-extraction form was applied to assess the suitability of instruments for use in economic evaluations.
Results: 5,982 articles were retrieved from the databases, of which 99 economic evaluations and nine validation studies were included in the review. Forty-two unique measurement instruments were identified. Nine instruments provided quantified measures of absenteeism, presenteeism, and unpaid work. Five instruments supplied the necessary information to enable the use of at least one common valuation method. The SF-HLQ, HLQ, and iPCQ met both criteria. However, the developers replaced the SF-HLQ and HLQ by the more recently developed iPCQ.
Conclusions: Although many instruments for measuring productivity loss were identified, most were not suitable for capturing productivity changes for economic evaluations from a societal perspective. Future research can benefit from this study by making an informed instrument choice for the measurement of productivity loss of paid and unpaid work
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1686-1699 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Value in Health |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| Early online date | 17 Sept 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 25 Oct 2021 |
Research Groups and Themes
- HEHP@Bristol
Keywords
- productivity loss
- productivity costs
- measurement
- systematic review
- economic evaluation
- measurement instruments
- survey
- questionnaire
- indirect costs