4.5 Article

Productivity Costs in Patients With Refractory Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 124, Issue 9, Pages 2007-2012

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.24630

Keywords

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

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 DC005805]
  2. NIH/NIDCD
  3. Medtronic
  4. Arthrocare
  5. Intersect ENT
  6. Optinose
  7. NeilMed
  8. Xoran

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/Hypothesis: Disease-specific reductions in patient productivity can lead to substantial economic losses to society. The purpose of this study was to: 1) define the annual productivity cost for a patient with refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and 2) evaluate the relationship between degree of productivity cost and CRS-specific characteristics. Study Design: Prospective, multi-institutional, observational cohort study. Methods: The human capital approach was used to define productivity costs. Annual absenteeism, presenteeism, and lost leisure time was quantified to define annual lost productive time (LPT). LPT was monetized using the annual daily wage rates obtained from the 2012 U. S. National Census and the 2013 U. S. Department of Labor statistics. Results: A total of 55 patients with refractory CRS were enrolled. The mean work days lost related to absenteeism and presenteeism were 24.6 and 38.8 days per year, respectively. A total of 21.2 household days were lost per year related to daily sinus care requirements. The overall annual productivity cost was $10,077.07 per patient with refractory CRS. Productivity costs increased with worsening disease-specific QoL (r=0.440; p=0.001). Conclusion: Results from this study have demonstrated that the annual productivity cost associated with refractory CRS is $10,077.07 per patient. This substantial cost to society provides a strong incentive to optimize current treatment protocols and continue evaluating novel clinical interventions to reduce this cost.

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