Jesse Kigozi1, Sue Jowett2, Martyn Lewis3, Pelham Barton2, Joanna Coast2. 1. Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. j.kigozi@bham.ac.uk. 2. Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. 3. Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Primary Care Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The choice of the most appropriate approach to valuing productivity loss has received much debate in the literature. The friction cost approach has been proposed as a more appropriate alternative to the human capital approach when valuing productivity loss, although its application remains limited. This study reviews application of the friction cost approach in health economic studies and examines how its use varies in practice across different country settings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify economic evaluation studies that have estimated productivity costs using the friction cost approach and published in English from 1996 to 2013. A standard template was developed and used to extract information from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The search yielded 46 studies from 12 countries. Of these, 28 were from the Netherlands. Thirty-five studies reported the length of friction period used, with only 16 stating explicitly the source of the friction period. Nine studies reported the elasticity correction factor used. The reported friction cost approach methods used to derive productivity costs varied in quality across studies from different countries. CONCLUSIONS: Few health economic studies have estimated productivity costs using the friction cost approach. The estimation and reporting of productivity costs using this method appears to differ in quality by country. The review reveals gaps and lack of clarity in reporting of methods for friction cost evaluation. Generating reporting guidelines and country-specific parameters for the friction cost approach is recommended if increased application and accuracy of the method is to be realized.
INTRODUCTION: The choice of the most appropriate approach to valuing productivity loss has received much debate in the literature. The friction cost approach has been proposed as a more appropriate alternative to the human capital approach when valuing productivity loss, although its application remains limited. This study reviews application of the friction cost approach in health economic studies and examines how its use varies in practice across different country settings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify economic evaluation studies that have estimated productivity costs using the friction cost approach and published in English from 1996 to 2013. A standard template was developed and used to extract information from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The search yielded 46 studies from 12 countries. Of these, 28 were from the Netherlands. Thirty-five studies reported the length of friction period used, with only 16 stating explicitly the source of the friction period. Nine studies reported the elasticity correction factor used. The reported friction cost approach methods used to derive productivity costs varied in quality across studies from different countries. CONCLUSIONS: Few health economic studies have estimated productivity costs using the friction cost approach. The estimation and reporting of productivity costs using this method appears to differ in quality by country. The review reveals gaps and lack of clarity in reporting of methods for friction cost evaluation. Generating reporting guidelines and country-specific parameters for the friction cost approach is recommended if increased application and accuracy of the method is to be realized.
Authors: C D Dirksen; A J Ament; E M Adang; G L Beets; P M Go; C G Baeten; G Kootstra Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 1998 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Bruno Fautrel; Ann E Clarke; Francis Guillemin; Viviane Adam; Yvan St-Pierre; Tina Panaritis; Paul R Fortin; Henri A Menard; Cam Donaldson; John R Penrod Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Lotte Steuten; Bert Vrijhoef; Frits Van Merode; Geert-Jan Wesseling; Cor Spreeuwenberg Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Silky Chotai; Scott L Parker; J Alex Sielatycki; Ahilan Sivaganesan; Harrison F Kay; Joseph B Wick; Matthew J McGirt; Clinton J Devin Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Jason Foo; Sarah H Landis; Joe Maskell; Yeon-Mok Oh; Thys van der Molen; MeiLan K Han; David M Mannino; Masakazu Ichinose; Yogesh Punekar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240