Measurement Instruments of Productivity Loss of Paid and Unpaid Work: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Suitability for Health Economic Evaluations From a Societal Perspective

Abstract

This study aimed (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: Articles published from 2018 were sourced from PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and Econlit. Using 2 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: A total of 5982 articles were retrieved from the databases, of which 99 economic evaluations and 9 validation studies were included in the review. A total of 42 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 1 common valuation method.

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

“… 4 Selecting an appropriate instrument, however, remains challenging. 4 28 Among the reviews we scrutinised, we found that the original economic evaluations used different instruments, which led to significant heterogeneity in outcomes. The inconsistency in selecting instruments and the heterogeneous outcomes are concerning, as they may threaten the validity and comparability of incorporating productivity loss in economic evaluations.…”

“…Third, most instruments focus on either absenteeism or presenteeism, reflecting either time or capacity loss in paid work, while both should be accounted for but few did for both. [28][29][30] If researchers select an instrument from dozens of comparators (eg, 42 unique instruments identified by a previous review) 4 without a consensus on the best choice, inconsistency occurs. Therefore, we conclude that the current instruments for productivity loss from paid work are not always appropriate for economic evaluations.…”

The Impact of Hypoglycemia on Productivity Loss and Utility in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Insulin in Real-world Canadian Practice: Protocol for a Prospective Study

“…Currently, available data on productivity loss have not been estimated using a validated questionnaire, thereby increasing the risk of bias [ 3 , 8 , 9 ]. A systematic review published in 2021 identified 42 unique instruments for measuring productivity, and the authors recommended the iPCQ for use in economic evaluations [ 60 ]. As for the current evidence on utility decrement due to hypoglycemia, Canadian data are limited to vignette studies (ie, bespoke descriptions of impaired health states), which are not the preferred source of utility owing to their inherent drawbacks [ 10 - 12 ].…”

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of hypertension and hyperlipidemia collaborative management between pharmacies and primary care in portugal alongside a trial compared with usual care (USFarmácia®)

“…We used the human capital approach for paid and unpaid productivity loss costs, considering the societal perspective ( Hubens et al, 2021 ). This included the cost of work loss attributable to absenteeism in workers and unpaid work of retired, disabled, unemployed, or performing household tasks who are able to perform activities replaceable by a third hired person, for example, household activities, informal care to more dependent people or grandchildren, volunteer work, or paid tasks outside the formal workforce ( Cylus et al, 2019 ), since the average age of our study population is just slightly below retirement age 66.3 in 2018.…”