OBJECTIVES: There were two study objectives: (i) to identify, via consensus, a key set of items for estimating the costs of productivity loss from a company's perspective and (ii) to develop recommendations for the costs of estimating productivity loss on the basis of consensus findings. METHODS: A modified Delphi procedure was utilized in which a predetermined set of 26 items formed the basis for inquiry in the first round. Thirty-six experts from five stakeholder groups in the Netherlands (employers, employees, policy makers and insurers, occupational health professionals, and researchers) participated in the panel. Opinions were sought regarding the relevance and retrievability of data on items related to the following three forms of work loss: work presenteeism (ie, decreased work performance while at work), short-term absenteeism (<2 weeks), and long-term absenteeism (>2 weeks). The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The consensus for relevance was set at 70%. RESULTS: After two rounds, 4 items were found relevant for estimating the costs of productivity loss due to work presenteeism, 6 items were relevant for short-term absenteeism, and 11 items remained for long-term absenteeism. The retrievability of data varied. Three sets of recommendations were formulated for estimating the costs of productivity loss from a company's perspective. CONCLUSION: A streamlined set of relevant items has been identified via consensus and formulated into recommendations for estimating the costs of productivity loss from a company's perspective. Although not definitive, these recommendations represent an important step towards standardizing the way these costs are estimated, and, in turn, facilitate the comparability and utility of economic evaluations of occupational health interventions.
OBJECTIVES: There were two study objectives: (i) to identify, via consensus, a key set of items for estimating the costs of productivity loss from a company's perspective and (ii) to develop recommendations for the costs of estimating productivity loss on the basis of consensus findings. METHODS: A modified Delphi procedure was utilized in which a predetermined set of 26 items formed the basis for inquiry in the first round. Thirty-six experts from five stakeholder groups in the Netherlands (employers, employees, policy makers and insurers, occupational health professionals, and researchers) participated in the panel. Opinions were sought regarding the relevance and retrievability of data on items related to the following three forms of work loss: work presenteeism (ie, decreased work performance while at work), short-term absenteeism (<2 weeks), and long-term absenteeism (>2 weeks). The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The consensus for relevance was set at 70%. RESULTS: After two rounds, 4 items were found relevant for estimating the costs of productivity loss due to work presenteeism, 6 items were relevant for short-term absenteeism, and 11 items remained for long-term absenteeism. The retrievability of data varied. Three sets of recommendations were formulated for estimating the costs of productivity loss from a company's perspective. CONCLUSION: A streamlined set of relevant items has been identified via consensus and formulated into recommendations for estimating the costs of productivity loss from a company's perspective. Although not definitive, these recommendations represent an important step towards standardizing the way these costs are estimated, and, in turn, facilitate the comparability and utility of economic evaluations of occupational health interventions.
Authors: Radoslaw Wasiak; Amanda E Young; Richard T Roessler; Kathryn M McPherson; Mireille N M van Poppel; Johannes R Anema Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2007-10-11
Authors: Moniek C Vlasveld; Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Johannes R Anema; Willem van Mechelen; Aartjan T F Beekman; Harm W J van Marwijk; Brenda W J H Penninx Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2013-09
Authors: Myrthe van Vilsteren; Sandra H van Oostrom; Henrica C W de Vet; Renée-Louise Franche; Cécile R L Boot; Johannes R Anema Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-10-05
Authors: Nathan Hutting; J Bart Staal; Yvonne F Heerkens; Josephine A Engels; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Trials Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Johanna M van Dongen; Marieke F van Wier; Emile Tompa; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Lisanne I van Lier; Judith E Bosmans; Hein P J van Hout; Lidwine B Mokkink; Wilbert B van den Hout; G Ardine de Wit; Carmen D Dirksen; Henk L G R Nies; Cees M P M Hertogh; Henriëtte G van der Roest Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-12-19
Authors: Maurice T Driessen; Johannes R Anema; Karin I Proper; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 2.362