Mark Alan Fontana1, Wasif Islam2, Michelle A Richardson3, Cathlyn K Medina4, Eleni C Kohilakis5, Sheeraz A Qureshi6, Catherine H MacLean7. 1. Center for Analytics, Modeling, and Performance, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA; Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA; Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: fontanam@hss.edu. 2. Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA; University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA. 4. Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 7. Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Health can impact work performance through absenteeism, time spent away from work, and presenteeism, inhibited at-work performance. Low back pain is common and costly, both in terms of direct medical expenditures and indirect reduced work performance. PURPOSE: Surgery for lumbar spinal pathology is an important part of treatment for patients who do not respond to nonsurgical management. While the indirect costs of return to work and absenteeism among employed patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery have been studied, little work has been done to quantify presenteeism before and after lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Prospective cohort study at a single high-volume urban musculoskeletal specialty hospital. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing single-level lumbar spinal fusion and/or decompression surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Presenteeism and absenteeism were measured using the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire before surgery, as well as 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. METHODS: Average presenteeism and absenteeism were evaluated at pre-surgical baseline and each follow-up timepoint. Monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism were calculated before surgery and 12 months after surgery. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools with support from Clinical and Translational Science Center grant, UL1TR002384. One author discloses royalties, private investments, consulting fees, speaking/teaching arrangements, travel, board of directorship, and scientific advisory board membership totaling >$300,000. RESULTS: We enrolled 134 employed surgical patients, among whom 115 (86%) responded at 6 weeks, 105 (78%) responded at 6 months, and 115 (86%) responded at 12 months. Preoperatively, mean age was 56.4 years (median 57.5), and 41.0% were women; 68 (50.7%) had only decompressions, while 66 (49.3%) had fusions. Among respondents at each time point, 98%, 92%, and 92% were still employed, among whom 76%, 96%, and 96% had resumed working, respectively (median 29 days). Average at-work performance among working patients (who responded at each pair of timepoints) moved from 75.4 to 78.7 between baseline and 6 weeks, 71.8 to 85.9 between baseline and 6 months, and 73.0 to 88.1 between baseline and 12 months. Gains were concentrated among the 52.0% of patients whose at-work performance was declining (and low) leading up to surgery. Average absenteeism was relatively unmoved between baseline and each follow-up. Before surgery, the monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism was 19.8% and 18.9%, respectively; 12 months after surgery, these numbers were 9.7% and 16.0%; changes represent a mitigated loss of 13.0 percentage points of average monthly value. CONCLUSIONS: Presenteeism and absenteeism contributed roughly evenly to preoperative average monthly lost time. Although average changes in absenteeism and 6-week at-work performance were small, average changes in at-work performance at 6 and 12 months were significant. Cost-benefit analyses of lumbar spine surgery should therefore consider improved presenteeism, which appears to offset some of the direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Health can impact work performance through absenteeism, time spent away from work, and presenteeism, inhibited at-work performance. Low back pain is common and costly, both in terms of direct medical expenditures and indirect reduced work performance. PURPOSE: Surgery for lumbar spinal pathology is an important part of treatment for patients who do not respond to nonsurgical management. While the indirect costs of return to work and absenteeism among employed patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery have been studied, little work has been done to quantify presenteeism before and after lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Prospective cohort study at a single high-volume urban musculoskeletal specialty hospital. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing single-level lumbar spinal fusion and/or decompression surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Presenteeism and absenteeism were measured using the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire before surgery, as well as 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. METHODS: Average presenteeism and absenteeism were evaluated at pre-surgical baseline and each follow-up timepoint. Monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism were calculated before surgery and 12 months after surgery. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools with support from Clinical and Translational Science Center grant, UL1TR002384. One author discloses royalties, private investments, consulting fees, speaking/teaching arrangements, travel, board of directorship, and scientific advisory board membership totaling >$300,000. RESULTS: We enrolled 134 employed surgical patients, among whom 115 (86%) responded at 6 weeks, 105 (78%) responded at 6 months, and 115 (86%) responded at 12 months. Preoperatively, mean age was 56.4 years (median 57.5), and 41.0% were women; 68 (50.7%) had only decompressions, while 66 (49.3%) had fusions. Among respondents at each time point, 98%, 92%, and 92% were still employed, among whom 76%, 96%, and 96% had resumed working, respectively (median 29 days). Average at-work performance among working patients (who responded at each pair of timepoints) moved from 75.4 to 78.7 between baseline and 6 weeks, 71.8 to 85.9 between baseline and 6 months, and 73.0 to 88.1 between baseline and 12 months. Gains were concentrated among the 52.0% of patients whose at-work performance was declining (and low) leading up to surgery. Average absenteeism was relatively unmoved between baseline and each follow-up. Before surgery, the monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism was 19.8% and 18.9%, respectively; 12 months after surgery, these numbers were 9.7% and 16.0%; changes represent a mitigated loss of 13.0 percentage points of average monthly value. CONCLUSIONS: Presenteeism and absenteeism contributed roughly evenly to preoperative average monthly lost time. Although average changes in absenteeism and 6-week at-work performance were small, average changes in at-work performance at 6 and 12 months were significant. Cost-benefit analyses of lumbar spine surgery should therefore consider improved presenteeism, which appears to offset some of the direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment.
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Minnie Ames; Pamela A Hymel; Ronald Loeppke; David K McKenas; Dennis E Richling; Paul E Stang; T Bedirhan Ustun Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Ron Z Goetzel; Stacey R Long; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Kevin Hawkins; Shaohung Wang; Wendy Lynch Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Anthony L Asher; Clinton J Devin; Kristin R Archer; Silky Chotai; Scott L Parker; Mohamad Bydon; Hui Nian; Frank E Harrell; Theodore Speroff; Robert S Dittus; Sharon E Philips; Christopher I Shaffrey; Kevin T Foley; Matthew J McGirt Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2017-05-12
Authors: Dorcas E Beaton; Kenneth Tang; Monique A M Gignac; Diane Lacaille; Elizabeth M Badley; Aslam H Anis; Claire Bombardier Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Nick Bansback; Wei Zhang; David Walsh; Patrick Kiely; Richard Williams; Daphne Guh; Aslam Anis; Adam Young Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Graham Seow-Hng Goh; William Yeo; Zhixing Marcus Ling; Wai-Mun Yue; Chang Ming Guo; Seang Beng Tan Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Mark A Fontana; Wasif Islam; Michelle A Richardson; Cathlyn K Medina; Alexander S McLawhorn; Catherine H MacLean Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 4.757