A Systematic Review of Productivity in Economic Evaluations of Workplace Interventions: A Need for Reporting Criteria?

Do current methods of measuring the impact of chronic pain on work reflect the experience of working-age adults? An integrated mixed-methods systematic narrative review

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain affects individuals' work participation. The impact of chronic pain on work has historically been measured through sickness absence, though it is now appreciated that the impacts on work are far wider. This mixed-methods review aimed to identify the full range of impacts of pain on work in addition to impacts that are currently measured quantitatively to inform the development of a new questionnaire assessing the wider impacts of chronic pain on work. MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL were searched for studies that included quantitative measures of the impact of chronic pain on work and for qualitative studies where individuals described impacts of their chronic pain on work. Quantitative measures, and text from qualitative studies, were analysed thematically. A thematic framework was developed for establishing the types of impacts measured or described in the literature. Forty-four quantitative and 16 qualitative papers were identified. The literature described impacts within 5 areas: changes at work and to working status; aspects of the workplace and work relationships; pain and related symptoms at work; psychological factors; and factors and impacts outside the work environment related to work. Quantitative measures mainly assessed impacts related to the quantity and quality of work (29 of 42 measures). Seventeen aspects were only discussed within the qualitative literature. This study identifies a discrepancy between the impacts that have been the focus of quantitative measures and the range that individuals working with chronic pain experience and highlights the need for a new measure assessing a wider range of issues.

A general framework for selecting work participation outcomes in intervention studies among persons with health problems: a concept paper

Background

Work participation is important for health and can be considered as engagement in a major area of life which is of significance for most people, but it can also be thought of as fulfilling or discharging a role. Currently, academic research lacks a comprehensive classification of work participation outcomes. The International Classification of Functioning is the foremost model in defining work functioning and its counterpart work disability, but it does not provide a critical (core) set of outcomes. Standardizing the definitions and nomenclature used in the research of work participation would ensure that the outcomes of studies are comparable, and practitioners and guideline developers can better decide what works best. As work participation is a broad umbrella term including outcome categories which need unambiguous differentiation, a framework needs to be developed first.

Aim

To propose a framework which can be used to develop a generic core outcome set for work participation.

Methods

First, we performed a systematic literature search on the concept of (work) participation, views on how to measure it, and on existing classifications for outcome measurements. Next, we derived criteria for the framework and proposed a framework based on the criteria. Last, we applied the framework to six case studies as a proof of concept.

Results

Our literature search provided 2106 hits and we selected 59 studies for full-text analysis. Based on the literature and the developed criteria we propose four overarching outcome categories: (1) initiating employment, (2) having employment, (3) increasing or maintaining productivity at work, and (4) return to employment. These categories appeared feasible in our proof-of-concept assessment with six different case studies.

Conclusion

We propose to use the framework for work participation outcomes to develop a core outcome set for intervention studies to improve work participation.

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

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.

Effectiveness of an ergonomics training program on musculoskeletal disorders, job stress, quality of work-life and productivity in office workers: a quasi-randomized control trial study

Objectives. The increasing prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), especially in the neck and upper limbs, among office workers is an important issue related to health and job productivity. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of an ergonomics training intervention on MSDs, quality of work-life and occupational psychosocial stresses among office workers. Methods. This quasi-randomized trial study was conducted in Isfahan, Iran in 2019. Outcome measures were measured in a follow-up period of 1, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. The results were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results. The interventions performed had a significant effect on neck, left shoulder, right wrist and left thigh discomfort. These interventions also had a significant effect on social support and physical job demands. Significant changes were detected in quality of work-life, chance of growth and security, social integration in organization and social relevance of work in life, although these changes decreased in quality of work-life. No significant differences were detected in the other measured outcomes. Conclusion. The implementation of ergonomic interventions was effective in reducing MSDs in the neck and upper limbs. It is recommended to conduct continuous training courses to control the risk of ergonomic factors affecting body discomfort.

Using qualitative methods for a conceptual analysis of measures of health status and presenteeism prior to a mapping study

OBJECTIVES

The inclusion of productivity in economic evaluations is a contentious issue. Methods are currently being developed to assess how it may feasibly be included for specific interventions, such as workplace interventions (WPIs), where productivity is a key outcome. Mapping (also called cross-walking or prediction modelling) may offer a solution. Prior to producing a mapping algorithm, it is recommended that the conceptual validity between 'source' and 'target' measures be understood first. This study aimed to understand the conceptual validity of two existing measures of health status (EQ-5D; SF-6D) and presenteeism to inform the potential for a subsequent mapping algorithm.

METHODS

A purposive sample of individuals who were currently working and had either rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Individuals were recruited through support groups. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted until data saturation (no new emerging themes) was reached. Deductive and inductive framework analysis methods were used to identify key aspects of the conditions (themes) that impact on presenteeism (working at reduced levels of health).

RESULTS

Twenty-two (RA = 10; AS = 9; PsA = 3) employed individuals were interviewed. Deductive analysis identified evidence which confirmed the domains included in the EQ-5D and SF-6D capture those key aspects of RA, AS and PsA that increase presenteeism. Inductive analysis identified an additional theme; mental clarity, not captured by the EQ-5D or SF-6D, was also found to have a direct impact on presenteeism.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study indicate conceptual validity of both health status measures to predict presenteeism. The next step is to develop a mapping algorithm for presenteeism.