4.5 Article

Productivity costs decrease after endoscopic sinus surgery for refractory chronic rhinosinusitis

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 126, Issue 3, Pages 570-574

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25656

Keywords

Chronic rhinosinusitis; sinusitis; productivity; cost; sinus surgery; economic; indirect cost; absenteeism; presenteeism

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIH: R01 DC005805]
  2. NIH [R03 DC013651-01]
  3. National Institutes of Health [NIH: R01 DC005805]
  4. NIH [R03 DC013651-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/HypothesisThe primary objective of this pilot study was to define the change in productivity costs following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Secondary objectives were to identify CRS-related characteristics that may influence the degree of productivity improvement after ESS. Study DesignProspective, multi-institutional, observational cohort study. MethodsThe human capital approach was used to define productivity costs. Annual absenteeism, presenteeism, and lost leisure time were quantified to define annual lost productive time (LPT). LPT was monetized using the annual daily wage rates obtained from the 2012 US Census and the 2013 US Department of Labor statistics. ResultsTwenty-seven patients with refractory CRS who underwent ESS were followed for a mean of 15 months (range, 8-25 months). Following ESS, there were improvements in annual absenteeism (22 days reduced to 3 days), annual presenteeism (41 days reduced to 19 days), and annual household days lost (12 days reduced to 6 days). Overall, the preoperative productivity costs were reduced after ESS ($9,190 vs. $3,373, respectively; P < .001). ConclusionsDaily productivity is negatively impacted by the presence of CRS. The outcomes from this study provide the first insights into the reduced productivity costs associated with receiving ESS for refractory CRS. Future studies with larger sample sizes will need to validate the results from this pilot study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available