Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Aug;7(8):e009777.
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009777.

Incorporating productivity loss in health economic evaluations: a review of guidelines and practices worldwide for research agenda in China

Affiliations
Review

Incorporating productivity loss in health economic evaluations: a review of guidelines and practices worldwide for research agenda in China

Shan Jiang et al. BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Aug.

Abstract

Introduction: Productivity loss may contribute to a large proportion of costs of health conditions in an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, but there is currently a lack of methodological consensus on how productivity loss should be measured and valued. Despite the research progress surrounding this issue in other countries, it has been rarely discussed in China.

Methods: We reviewed the official guidelines on economic evaluations in different countries and regions and screened the literature to summarise the extent to which productivity loss was incorporated in economic evaluations and the underlying methodological challenges.

Results: A total of 48 guidelines from 46 countries/regions were included. Although 32 (67%) guidelines recommend excluding productivity loss in the base case analysis, 23 (48%) guidelines recommend including productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses. Through a review of systematic reviews and the economic evaluation studies included in these reviews, we found that the average probability of incorporating productivity loss in an economic evaluation was 10.2%. Among the economic evaluations (n=478) that explicitly considered productivity loss, most (n=455) considered losses from paid work, while only a few studies (n=23) considered unpaid work losses. Recognising the existing methodological challenges and the specific context of China, we proposed a practical research agenda and a disease list for progress on this topic, including the development of the disease list comprehensively consisting of health conditions where the productivity loss should be incorporated into economic evaluations.

Conclusion: An increasing number of guidelines recommend the inclusion of productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses of economic evaluation. We optimistically expect that more Chinese researchers notice the importance of incorporating productivity loss in economic evaluations and anticipate guidelines that may be suitable for Chinese practitioners and decision-makers that facilitate the advancement of research on productivity loss measurement and valuation.

Keywords: health economics; review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The selection process of eligible studies.

References

    1. Byford S, Raftery J. Perspectives in economic evaluation. BMJ 1998;316:1529. 10.1136/bmj.316.7143.1529 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zhang W, Bansback N, Anis AH. Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: a critical review. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:185–92. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.10.026 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krol M, Papenburg J, Tan SS, et al. A noticeable difference? Productivity costs related to paid and unpaid work in economic evaluations on expensive drugs. Eur J Health Econ 2016;17:391–402. 10.1007/s10198-015-0685-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hubens K, Krol M, Coast J, et al. Measurement instruments of productivity loss of paid and unpaid work: a systematic review and assessment of suitability for health economic evaluations from a societal perspective. Value Health 2021;24:1686–99. 10.1016/j.jval.2021.05.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krol M, Papenburg J, Koopmanschap M, et al. Do productivity costs matter? Pharmacoeconomics 2011;29:601–19. 10.2165/11539970-000000000-00000 - DOI - PubMed