Literature DB >> 14871164

A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments.

Jennifer H Lofland1, Laura Pizzi, Kevin D Frick.   

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, peer-reviewed 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.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14871164     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200422030-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  32 in total

1.  Development of the Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ): an instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation to worker health.

Authors:  Richard Shikiar; Michael T Halpern; Anne M Rentz; Zeba M Khan
Journal:  Work       Date:  2004

2.  The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument.

Authors:  M C Reilly; A S Zbrozek; E M Dukes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease.

Authors:  M A Koopmanschap; F F Rutten; B M van Ineveld; L van Roijen
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  The willingness to pay for health changes, the human-capital approach and the external costs.

Authors:  M Johannesson
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease.

Authors:  M A Koopmanschap; B M van Ineveld
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US.

Authors:  J T Osterhaus; D L Gutterman; J R Plachetka
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  The migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire: concepts and design.

Authors:  D J Lerner; B C Amick; S Malspeis; W H Rogers; N C Santanello; W C Gerth; R B Lipton
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in The Netherlands.

Authors:  L van Roijen; M L Essink-Bot; M A Koopmanschap; B C Michel; F F Rutten
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Validation of a migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire for use in migraine studies.

Authors:  G M Davies; N Santanello; W Gerth; D Lerner; G A Block
Journal:  Cephalalgia       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 6.292

10.  The role of health risk factors and disease on worker productivity.

Authors:  W N Burton; D J Conti; C Y Chen; A B Schultz; D W Edington
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.162

View more
  70 in total

1.  Beyond return to work: testing a measure of at-work disability in workers with musculoskeletal pain.

Authors:  Dorcas E Beaton; Carol A Kennedy
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Employee health and presenteeism: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alyssa B Schultz; Dee W Edington
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2007-07-25

3.  Does sickness presenteeism have an impact on future general health?

Authors:  Gunnar Bergström; Lennart Bodin; Jan Hagberg; Tomas Lindh; Gunnar Aronsson; Malin Josephson
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 4.  Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Ingrid Riphagen; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Health-related quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease in a Danish population-based inception cohort.

Authors:  Lea K Christiansen; Bobby Lo; Flemming Bendtsen; Ida Vind; Marianne K Vester-Andersen; Johan Burisch
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 6.  The cost and impact of health conditions on presenteeism to employers: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Alyssa B Schultz; Chin-Yu Chen; Dee W Edington
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Responsiveness of a 1-Year Recall Modified DASH Work Module in Active Workers with Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Symptoms.

Authors:  Ann Marie Dale; Bethany T Gardner; Skye Buckner-Petty; Vicki Kaskutas; Jaime Strickland; Bradley Evanoff
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2015-09

8.  The work role functioning questionnaire 2.0 (Dutch version): examination of its reliability, validity and responsiveness in the general working population.

Authors:  Femke I Abma; Jac J L van der Klink; Ute Bültmann
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2013-03

Review 9.  Productivity costs in economic evaluations: past, present, future.

Authors:  Marieke Krol; Werner Brouwer; Frans Rutten
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Maximum recovery after knee replacement--the MARKER study rationale and protocol.

Authors:  Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Lyn March; Jack Crosbie; Ross Crawford; Stephen Graves; Justine Naylor; Alison Harmer; Stephen Jan; Kim Bennell; Ian Harris; David Parker; Helene Moffet; Marlene Fransen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.