Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 3/2004

01-02-2004 | Review Article

A Review of Health-Related Workplace Productivity Loss Instruments

Authors: Dr. Jennifer H. Lofland, Laura Pizzi, Kevin D. Frick

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 3/2004

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this review was to identify health-related workplace productivity loss survey instruments, with particular emphasis on those that capture a metric suitable for direct translation into a monetary figure.
A literature search using Medline, HealthSTAR, PsycINFO and Econlit databases between 1966 and 2002, and a telephone-administered survey of business leaders and researchers, were conducted to identify health-related workplace productivity measurement survey instruments. This review was conducted from the societal perspective. Each identified instrument was reviewed for the following: (i) reliability; (ii) content validity; (iii) construct validity; (iv) criterion validity; (v) productivity metric(s); (vi) instrument scoring technique; (vii) suitability for direct translation into a monetary figure; (viii) number of items; (ix) mode(s) of administration; and (x) disease state(s) in which it had been tested.
Reliability and validity testing have been performed for 8 of the 11 identified surveys. Of the 11 instruments identified, six captured metrics that are suitable for direct translation into a monetary figure. Of those six, one instrument measured absenteeism, while the other five measured both absenteeism and presenteeism. All of the identified instruments except for one were available as paper, self-administered questionnaires and many were available in languages other than English.
This review provides a comprehensive overview of the published, peerreviewed survey instruments available to measure health-related workplace productivity loss. As the field of productivity measurement matures, tools may be developed that will allow researchers to accurately calculate lost productivity costs when performing cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Using data captured by these instruments, society and healthcare decision makers will be able to make better informed decisions concerning the value of the medications, disease management and health promotion programmes that individuals receive.
Literature
1.
Kuttner R. The American health care system: employer-spon sored health coverage. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 248–52PubMedCrossRef
2.
Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (1 Pt 1): 1–7PubMedCrossRef
3.
Burton W, Conti D. The real measure of productivity. Bus Health 1999; 17 (11): 34–6PubMed
4.
Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for health changes, the human-capital approach and the external costs. Health Policy 1996; 36: 231–44PubMedCrossRef
5.
Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 1005–10PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Ferrari M. The economic burden of migraine to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 Jun; 13 (6): 667–76
8.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (6): 446–54PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10 (5): 460–6PubMedCrossRef
11.
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89PubMedCrossRef
12.
Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (5): 563–6PubMedCrossRef
13.
Peeples P, Wertheimer A, Mackowiak J, et al. Controversies in measuring and valuing indirect costs of productivity foregone in a cost of illness evaluation. J Res Pharmaceut Econ 1997; 8: 23–32
14.
de Lissovoy G, Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine: present state of knowledge. Neurology 1994; 44: S56–62
15.
van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care. The Health and Labor Questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 405–15PubMedCrossRef
16.
Salkever DS. Morbidity costs: national estimates and economic determinants. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Services Research, 1986
17.
van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (2): 170–9PubMedCrossRef
18.
Spector WD. Functional disability scales. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven; 1996: 133–43
19.
Lerner DJ, Amick III BC, Malspeis S, et al. The Angina-related Limitations at Work Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 23–32PubMedCrossRef
20.
Endicott J, Nee J. Assessment measures for clinical studies: Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacol Bull 1997; 33: 13–6
21.
Shikiar R, Rentz AM, Halpern MT, et al. The health and work questionnaire (HWQ): an instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation to worker health [abstract]. Value Health 2001; 4 (2): 181CrossRef
22.
Davies GM, Santanello N, Gerth W, et al. Validation of a migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire for use in migraine studies. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 497–502PubMedCrossRef
23.
Lerner D, Amick III BC, Malspeis S, et al. The Migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire: Concepts and design. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 699–710PubMedCrossRef
24.
Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and low labour costs of migraine headaches in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2 (2): 67–76PubMedCrossRef
25.
Koopman C, Pelletier K, Murray JF, et al. Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2002 Jan; 44 (1): 14–20PubMedCrossRef
26.
McHutchison JG, Ware Jr JE, Bayliss MS, et al. The effects of interferon alpha-2b in combination with ribavirin on health related quality of life and work productivity. J Hepatol 2001; 34: 140–7PubMedCrossRef
27.
Lerner D, Amick BC, Rogers WH, et al. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care 2001; 39: 72–85PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lerner D, Reed JI, Massarotti E, et al. The work limitations questionnaire’s validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 197–208PubMedCrossRef
29.
Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (5): 353–65PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Lynch W, Riedel JE. Measuring employee productivity: a guide to self-assessment tools. 1–94 2001. Scottsdale (AZ): William M. Mercer Incorporate, Institute for Health & Productivity Management, 2001
32.
Burton WN, Conti DJ, Chen CY, et al. The role of health risk factors and disease on worker productivity. J Occup Environ Med 1999; 41: 863–77PubMedCrossRef
33.
Wahlqvist P, Carlsson J, Stalhammar NO, et al. Validity of a work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for patients with symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (WPAI-GERD): results from a cross-sectional study. Value Health 2002; 5: 106–13PubMedCrossRef
34.
Hartmaier SL, Santanello NC, Epstein RS, et al. Development of a brief 24-hour migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire. Headache 1995; 35: 320–9PubMedCrossRef
35.
Santanello NC, Hartmaier SL, Epstein RS, et al. Validation of a new quality of life questionnaire for acute migraine headache. Headache 1995; 35: 330–7PubMedCrossRef
36.
Burton W, Conti D. Use of an integrated health data warehouse to measure the employer costs of five chronic disease states. Dis Manag 1998; 1: 17–26CrossRef
37.
Kroenke K, West SL, Swindle R, et al. Similar effectiveness of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline in primary care: a randomized trial. JAMA 2001; 286: 2947–55PubMedCrossRef
38.
Lofland JH, Kim S, Batenhorst AS, et al. Cost effectiveness and cost benefit of sumatriptan in patients with migraine. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76: 1093–101PubMedCrossRef
39.
Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, et al. The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45: 156–74PubMedCrossRef
40.
Metadata
Title
A Review of Health-Related Workplace Productivity Loss Instruments
Authors
Dr. Jennifer H. Lofland
Laura Pizzi
Kevin D. Frick
Publication date
01-02-2004
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 3/2004
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422030-00003

Other articles of this Issue 3/2004

PharmacoEconomics 3/2004 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Interventions for Lateral Epicondylitis

Original Research Article

Psychometric Validation of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire — 25 (NEI VFQ-25) French Version

Review Article

Cost-of-Illness Studies in Diabetes Mellitus

Leading Article

Education in Pharmacoeconomics