Literature DB >> 10204732

Indirect costs of back pain in the Netherlands: a comparison of the human capital method with the friction cost method.

R C Hutubessy1, M W van Tulder, H Vondeling, L M Bouter.   

Abstract

In this study we estimated the indirect costs of back pain in 1991 in The Netherlands on the basis of two approaches: the traditionally used human capital method and the more recently developed friction cost method. The indirect costs of illness were defined as the value of production losses of paid labour and related costs to society due to back pain. The results of this study in 1991 in The Netherlands show that the short-term indirect costs estimated by the human capital method were more than three times as high as the indirect costs estimated by the friction cost method (US$ 4.6 billion vs. USS 1.5 billion, respectively). The lower estimate of indirect costs when using the friction cost method is mainly due to the fact that in this method actual production losses are estimated during a relatively short friction period, which is defined as the period needed to restore the initial production level. In contrast with the human capital method, long-term absenteeism and disability do not induce additional costs when applying the friction cost method. Since the friction cost method takes into account that employees can be replaced, we believe that this method produces a more accurate estimate of indirect costs than the human capital method. Notwithstanding the resulting decrease in indirect costs of back pain, these costs are still impressive, representing 0.28% of the GNP in The Netherlands in 1991. As a consequence, but particularly stimulated by structural changes in the Dutch social security system, policies aimed at reducing indirect costs of back pain, increasingly concentrate on the development and evaluation of interventions early after the onset of disease. This is complemented, on the one hand, by the development of clinical guidelines for the management of back pain in primary care and, on the other hand, by governmental policies aimed at reintegration of chronically ill in the labour force.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10204732     DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00204-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  23 in total

Review 1.  Cost-of-illness studies : a review of current methods.

Authors:  Ebere Akobundu; Jing Ju; Lisa Blatt; C Daniel Mullins
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Economic evaluation of a multi-stage return to work program for workers on sick-leave due to low back pain.

Authors:  Ivan A Steenstra; Johannes R Anema; Maurits W van Tulder; Paulien M Bongers; Henrica C W de Vet; Willem van Mechelen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2006-12

3.  Loss of labour productivity caused by disease and health problems: what is the magnitude of its effect on Spain's economy?

Authors:  Juan Oliva-Moreno
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-08-20

4.  Paid expenditures and productivity costs associated with permanent disability pensions in patients with spinal disorders: Nationwide Finnish Register-based Study, 1990-2010.

Authors:  Tom Asklöf; Janne Martikainen; Hannu Kautiainen; Maija Haanpää; Ilkka Kiviranta; Timo Pohjolainen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  Friction Cost Estimates of Productivity Costs in Cost-of-Illness Studies in Comparison with Human Capital Estimates: A Review.

Authors:  Jamison Pike; Scott D Grosse
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.561

6.  Regional variations in the economic burden attributable to excess weight, physical inactivity and tobacco smoking across British Columbia.

Authors:  H Krueger; J M Koot; D P Rasali; S E Gustin; M Pennock
Journal:  Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review.

Authors:  J Guzmán; R Esmail; K Karjalainen; A Malmivaara; E Irvin; C Bombardier
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-06-23

8.  Evaluation of the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR in major depressive disorder.

Authors:  José-Luis Fernandez; Stuart Montgomery; Clément Francois
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Variation across Canada in the economic burden attributable to excess weight, tobacco smoking and physical inactivity.

Authors:  Hans Krueger; Joshua Krueger; Jacqueline Koot
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2015-04-30

10.  The costs for persons sick-listed more than one month because of low back or neck problems. A two-year prospective study of Swedish patients.

Authors:  Elisabeth K Hansson; Tommy H Hansson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.