Incorporating productivity loss in health economic evaluations: a review of guidelines and practices worldwide for research agenda in China

Abstract

IntroductionProductivity loss may contribute to a large proportion of costs of health conditions in an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, but there is currently a lack of methodological consensus on how productivity loss should be measured and valued. Despite the research progress surrounding this issue in other countries, it has been rarely discussed in China.MethodsWe reviewed the official guidelines on economic evaluations in different countries and regions and screened the literature to summarise the extent to which productivity loss was incorporated in economic evaluations and the underlying methodological challenges.ResultsA total of 48 guidelines from 46 countries/regions were included. Although 32 (67%) guidelines recommend excluding productivity loss in the base case analysis, 23 (48%) guidelines recommend including productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses. Through a review of systematic reviews and the economic evaluation studies included in these reviews, we found that the average probability of incorporating productivity loss in an economic evaluation was 10.2%. Among the economic evaluations (n=478) that explicitly considered productivity loss, most (n=455) considered losses from paid work, while only a few studies (n=23) considered unpaid work losses. Recognising the existing methodological challenges and the specific context of China, we proposed a practical research agenda and a disease list for progress on this topic, including the development of the disease list comprehensively consisting of health conditions where the productivity loss should be incorporated into economic evaluations.ConclusionAn increasing number of guidelines recommend the inclusion of productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses of economic evaluation. We optimistically expect that more Chinese researchers notice the importance of incorporating productivity loss in economic evaluations and anticipate guidelines that may be suitable for Chinese practitioners and decision-makers that facilitate the advancement of research on productivity loss measurement and valuation.

Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

“…Most studies do not use OOP cost as an attribute, and thus we were unable to estimate the WTPs in these studies. Another explanation is that the non-DCE studies may have incorporated an end-of-life premium for cancer patients at advanced stages, future medical and nonmedical costs for patients after treatment, and the impact of cancers on their productivity [ 82 , 83 ]. The third explanation is the presence of potential biases that occurred in implementing the seven DCEs, such as the selection bias [ 16 , 84 ].…”

Breast Cancer Screening Should Embrace Precision Medicine: Evidence by Reviewing Economic Evaluations in China

“…Challenges were observed in incorporating productivity loss in the CEA, mostly due to a lack of methodological guidance and appropriate data on productivity loss in the Chinese context [ 35 , 36 ]. Three reviewed studies considered productivity loss, but no detailed process description was presented [ 18 , 23 , 25 ].…”

“…Three reviewed studies considered productivity loss, but no detailed process description was presented [ 18 , 23 , 25 ]. Including productivity loss as the main part of indirect costs is recommended in China’s current national guideline for health economic evaluation considering its effect on total costs that may ultimately influence the ICER from a societal perspective [ 35 , 37 , 38 ]. However, further research on this topic is warranted to address this challenge.…”

Population-level health and economic impacts of introducing Vaccae vaccination in China: a modelling study

“…The number of required vaccines was estimated according to the targeted population, buffer stock and vaccine wastage rate. For the cumulative net cost of vaccination, the estimates included screening and vaccination costs incurred, and averted TB service costs and/or productivity loss, from healthcare sector or societal perspective 20…”