A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments

Jennifer H. Lofland, Laura Pizzi, Kevin Frick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)165-184
Number of pages20
JournalPharmacoEconomics
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2004

Fingerprint

Workplace
Efficiency
Health
Absenteeism
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Research Personnel
Disease Management
Health Promotion
Telephone
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires
Language
Databases
Delivery of Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. / Lofland, Jennifer H.; Pizzi, Laura; Frick, Kevin.

In: PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2004, p. 165-184.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lofland, Jennifer H. ; Pizzi, Laura ; Frick, Kevin. / A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. In: PharmacoEconomics. 2004 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 165-184.
@article{a506ac54e46a4abe9c20ea101b9e6beb,
title = "A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments",
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.",
author = "Lofland, {Jennifer H.} and Laura Pizzi and Kevin Frick",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.2165/00019053-200422030-00003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "165--184",
journal = "PharmacoEconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments

AU - Lofland, Jennifer H.

AU - Pizzi, Laura

AU - Frick, Kevin

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1542407285&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1542407285&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2165/00019053-200422030-00003

DO - 10.2165/00019053-200422030-00003

M3 - Article

C2 - 14871164

AN - SCOPUS:1542407285

VL - 22

SP - 165

EP - 184

JO - PharmacoEconomics

JF - PharmacoEconomics

SN - 1170-7690

IS - 3

ER -