Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Health-Related Workplace Productivity Loss Instruments

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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, peerreviewed 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuttner R. The American health care system: employer-spon sored health coverage. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 248–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (1 Pt 1): 1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Burton W, Conti D. The real measure of productivity. Bus Health 1999; 17 (11): 34–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for health changes, the human-capital approach and the external costs. Health Policy 1996; 36: 231–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 1005–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mushkin S. Health as an investment. J Polit Econ 1962; 70: 129–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrari M. The economic burden of migraine to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 Jun; 13 (6): 667–76

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (6): 446–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Robinson JC. Philosophical origins of the economic valuation of life. Milbank Q 1986; 64: 133–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10 (5): 460–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (5): 563–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Peeples P, Wertheimer A, Mackowiak J, et al. Controversies in measuring and valuing indirect costs of productivity foregone in a cost of illness evaluation. J Res Pharmaceut Econ 1997; 8: 23–32

    Google Scholar 

  14. de Lissovoy G, Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine: present state of knowledge. Neurology 1994; 44: S56–62

    Google Scholar 

  15. van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care. The Health and Labor Questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 405–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Salkever DS. Morbidity costs: national estimates and economic determinants. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Services Research, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  17. van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (2): 170–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Spector WD. Functional disability scales. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven; 1996: 133–43

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lerner DJ, Amick III BC, Malspeis S, et al. The Angina-related Limitations at Work Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 23–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Endicott J, Nee J. Assessment measures for clinical studies: Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacol Bull 1997; 33: 13–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Shikiar R, Rentz AM, Halpern MT, et al. The health and work questionnaire (HWQ): an instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation to worker health [abstract]. Value Health 2001; 4 (2): 181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Davies GM, Santanello N, Gerth W, et al. Validation of a migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire for use in migraine studies. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 497–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lerner D, Amick III BC, Malspeis S, et al. The Migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire: Concepts and design. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 699–710

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and low labour costs of migraine headaches in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2 (2): 67–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Koopman C, Pelletier K, Murray JF, et al. Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2002 Jan; 44 (1): 14–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McHutchison JG, Ware Jr JE, Bayliss MS, et al. The effects of interferon alpha-2b in combination with ribavirin on health related quality of life and work productivity. J Hepatol 2001; 34: 140–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lerner D, Amick BC, Rogers WH, et al. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care 2001; 39: 72–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lerner D, Reed JI, Massarotti E, et al. The work limitations questionnaire’s validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 197–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (5): 353–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Reilly Associates health outcomes research. Available from URL: http://www.reillyassociates.net [Accessed 2002 Feb 5]

  31. Lynch W, Riedel JE. Measuring employee productivity: a guide to self-assessment tools. 1–94 2001. Scottsdale (AZ): William M. Mercer Incorporate, Institute for Health & Productivity Management, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  32. Burton WN, Conti DJ, Chen CY, et al. The role of health risk factors and disease on worker productivity. J Occup Environ Med 1999; 41: 863–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wahlqvist P, Carlsson J, Stalhammar NO, et al. Validity of a work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for patients with symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (WPAI-GERD): results from a cross-sectional study. Value Health 2002; 5: 106–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hartmaier SL, Santanello NC, Epstein RS, et al. Development of a brief 24-hour migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire. Headache 1995; 35: 320–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Santanello NC, Hartmaier SL, Epstein RS, et al. Validation of a new quality of life questionnaire for acute migraine headache. Headache 1995; 35: 330–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Burton W, Conti D. Use of an integrated health data warehouse to measure the employer costs of five chronic disease states. Dis Manag 1998; 1: 17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kroenke K, West SL, Swindle R, et al. Similar effectiveness of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline in primary care: a randomized trial. JAMA 2001; 286: 2947–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lofland JH, Kim S, Batenhorst AS, et al. Cost effectiveness and cost benefit of sumatriptan in patients with migraine. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76: 1093–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, et al. The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45: 156–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kessler RC. World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire. Available from URL: http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/hpq [Accessed 2003 Oct 23]

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Aventis, Inc., Agency for Health Care Research and Quality K-08 00005 Mentored Clinical Scientist Award and a PhRMA Foundation Grant.

We would like to thank David B. Nash and Neil Goldfarb for their support. We would like to thank Phillip Sarocco and Joseph Doyle for their comments on the manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Health Policy and Clinical Outcomes, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 115, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, USA

    Jennifer H. Lofland & Laura Pizzi

  2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Health Services Research and Development Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Kevin D. Frick

Authors
  1. Jennifer H. Lofland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Pizzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin D. Frick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer H. Lofland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lofland, J.H., Pizzi, L. & Frick, K.D. A Review of Health-Related Workplace Productivity Loss Instruments. PharmacoEconomics 22, 165–184 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422030-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422030-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation