When national pharmacoeconomic guidelines are compared, different recommendations are identified on how to identify, measure and value lost productivity, leading to difficulties when comparing lost productivity estimates across countries. From a transferability point of view, the question arises of whether differences between countries regarding lost productivity are the result of using different calculation methods (methodological differences) or of other between-country differences. When lost productivity data differ significantly across countries, the transferability of lost productivity data across countries is hindered.
The objective of this study was to investigate whether country of residence has a significant influence on the quantity of lost productivity among patients with rheumatic disorders. Confounding factors that might differ between countries were corrected for, while the methodology used to identify and measure lost productivity was kept the same.
This question was investigated by means of an online questionnaire filled out by 200 respondents with a rheumatic disorder per country in four European countries, namely the Netherlands, the UK, Germany and France. In addition to those regarding lost productivity, the questionnaire contained questions about patient characteristics, disability insurance, disease characteristics, quality of life and job characteristics as these variables are expected to influence lost productivity in terms of absenteeism and presenteeism. The data were analysed by regression analyses, in which different components - being absent in last 3 months, number of days absent and presenteeism - of lost productivity were the main outcome measures and other variables, such as gender, impact of disease, shift work, job control, partial disability and overall general health, were corrected for.
The results showed that country sometimes has a significant influence on lost productivity and that other variables such as, for example, age, disease severity, number of contract hours, decision latitude, experienced health (as reported on the visual analogue scale) and partial disability, also influence lost productivity. A significant influence of country of residence was found on the variables 'being absent in the last three months', 'number of days absent' and 'quality of work on the last working day'. However, country did not influence 'quantity of work on the last working day' and 'overall presenteeism on the last working day'.
It can be concluded that country has a significant influence on lost productivity among patients with rheumatic disorders, when corrected for other variables that have an influence on absenteeism and presenteeism. Transferring lost productivity data across countries without adaptation is hindered by the significant differences between countries in this patient group. As a result, transferring lost productivity data, being either monetary values or volumes of productivity losses, between countries can give wrong estimations of the cost effectiveness of treatments.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Productivity costs are usually estimated by multiplying the wage with the period absent. This can lead to an overestimation if compensation mechanisms occur. Until now only Dutch data are available on the influence of compensation mechanisms on lost productivity, but between-country differences in frequency and type of compensation mechanisms can be expected. The objective of this study was to understand whether compensation mechanisms for days absent from paid work differ in type and frequency across countries and to explore whether this would result in between-country differences in relevant lost productivity.
Data from a cross-sectional survey among respondents with rheumatic disorders from four countries were the basis for this study. Analyses focused on respondents with paid employment who reported absence in the last 3 months. The different compensation mechanisms are described and the resulting lost productivity in terms of days absent was calculated with and without taking compensation mechanisms into account. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine which variables influence compensation mechanisms leading to relevant lost productivity.
The results indicate that compensation mechanisms occur and are relevant in all four countries. Between-country differences in the type and frequency of compensation mechanisms and relevant lost productivity were observed. The logistic regression analyses indicate that, correcting for other variables, this is also the case for the use of compensation mechanisms leading to relevant lost productivity.
Between-country differences in compensation mechanisms in case of absenteeism exist and could vary to such an extent that foreign relevant lost productivity data should be used with caution.
Value in Health 07/2013; 16(5):740-4. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1624 · 3.28 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Impairments in work productivity and daily activities contribute to the burden of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is thus essential to use an instrument assessing both work and daily activity impairments when studying the full impact of RA on individuals. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire is such an instrument.
This study aims to linguistically validate the RA-specific WPAI (WPAI:RA) instrument in 20 new languages and to assess its content validity for individuals with RA.
The linguistic validation of the questionnaire followed a standard methodology that included comprehension test interviews (n = 5 individuals with RA per language) to assess the relevance, understanding and acceptability of the WPAI:RA. Content validity of the instrument was simultaneously investigated.
Comprehension testing showed that the WPAI:RA questionnaire was well understood similarly across countries; minor changes were made to ensure fidelity to the original concepts and for ease of comprehension. The majority of interviewees (66/93) considered its content comprehensive and appropriate to measure their ability to work and perform daily activities.
The WPAI:RA questionnaire is now linguistically validated in 20 new languages [Czech (Czech Republic), Dutch (Belgium), English (Canada and UK), French (Belgium, Canada and France), German (Germany), Hungarian (Hungary), Italian (Italy), Polish (Poland), Portuguese (Brazil), Romanian (Romania), Russian (Russia and Ukraine), Spanish (Argentina, Mexico, Spain and US) and Ukrainian (Ukraine)]. The WPAI:RA questionnaire shows good content validity. It can thus be used in multi-country clinical trials to assess RA-related impact on the patients' ability to work and perform daily activities.
The patient 03/2014; 7(2). DOI:10.1007/s40271-014-0053-4 · 1.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives
To determine and compare the impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriasis on work productivity, to calculate the productivity costs (PC), and to map out factors that influence (functional status and disease activity) work productivity.
The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire was used to evaluate productivity losses of patients with RA (n = 77), AS (n = 230), and psoriasis (n = 93). Demographic data, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]), and clinical parameters (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28], body surface area [BSA], and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI]) were collected. The correlations among PROs, clinical parameters, and overall productivity loss were examined, and multiple regression models were used to examine relationships among parameters and productivity loss. PC were calculated using the friction cost approach.
Mean patient age and disease duration were 47.1 and 15.7 years, respectively. The mean HAQ and DAS28 in patients with RA were 1.22 and 5.6, respectively. The mean BASDAI score in patients with AS was 4.43. The mean BSA and PASI score in patients with psoriasis were 21.1% and 12.9, respectively. The percentage of patients with psoriatic arthritis (in those with psoriasis) was 24.7%. We did not find significant differences in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment domains among various diagnoses. Patients with AS, RA, and psoriasis reported overall work productivity losses of 40.9%, 42.9%, and 42.8%, respectively. Daily activity impairments were approximately 50.0%. Overall work productivity loss strongly correlated with PROs, whereas correlations with clinical parameters were weak. The HAQ and BASDAI were identified as major predictors of productivity impairment.
The greatest loss in productivity was in those with psoriatic arthritis; however, it was not significant. In contrast to clinical parameters (DAS28, BSA, and PASI score), PROs (HAQ and BASDAI score) significantly influence loss of productivity. The average annual lost PC per patient was estimated to be €2000.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.