4.6 Review

Measuring, Analyzing, and Presenting Work Productivity Loss in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review

Journal

VALUE IN HEALTH
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 123-137

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.06.015

Keywords

absenteeism; presenteeism; randomized controlled trial; scoping review; work productivity loss

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study conducted a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the measurement, analysis, and presentation methods of work productivity loss outcomes. A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020, and data from 435 studies were analyzed. The results showed a lack of consensus in measuring, analyzing, and presenting work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs, leading to challenges in comparability. Guidelines are needed to standardize methods used in RCTs for measuring, analyzing, and reporting work productivity loss.
Objectives: This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs, how each outcome was measured and analyzed, and how the results for each outcome were presented.Methods: A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020 from 2 databases: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on country, study population, disease focus, sample size, work productivity loss outcomes measured (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes), and methods used to measure, report, and analyze each work productivity loss outcome were extracted and analyzed.Results: We found 435 studies measuring absenteeism or presenteeism, of which 155 studies (35.6%) measured both absenteeism and presenteeism and were included in our final review. Only 9 studies also measured employment status changes. The most used questionnaire was the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. The analysis of absenteeism and presenteeism data was mostly done using regression models (n = 98, n = 98, respectively) for which a normal distribution was assumed (n = 77, n = 89, respectively). Absenteeism results were most often presented in time whereas presenteeism was commonly presented using a percent scale or score.Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on how to measure, analyze, and present work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs published in the past 10 years. The diversity of measurement, analysis, and presentation methods used in RCTs may make comparability challenging. There is a need for guidelines providing recommendations to standardize the comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of methods used to measure, analyze, and report work productivity loss in RCTs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available