4.6 Article

Allergic rhinitis and the common cold - high cost to society

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 65, 期 6, 页码 776-783

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.02269.x

关键词

absenteeism; caregiver absenteeism; presenteeism; productivity loss; rhinitis

资金

  1. Schering Plough, Sweden
  2. GSK, Sweden
  3. Swedish Acta Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background: The common cold and allergic rhinitis constitute a global health problem that affects social life, sleep, school and work performance and is likely to impose a substantial economic burden on society because of absence from work and reduced working capacity. This study assesses the loss of productivity as a result of both allergic rhinitis and the common cold in the Swedish working population. Methods: Four thousand questionnaires were sent to a randomized adult population, aged 18-65 years, in Sweden, stratified by gender and area of residence (metropolitan area vs rest of the country). The human capital approach was used to assign monetary value to lost productivity in terms of absenteeism (absence from work), presenteeism (reduced working capacity while at work) and caregiver absenteeism (absence from work to take care of a sick child). Results: Thousand two hundred and thirteen individuals responded, response rate 32%. The mean productivity loss was estimated at 5.1 days or euro 653 per worker and year, yielding a total productivity loss in Sweden of euro 2.7 billion a year. Of the total costs, absenteeism (44%) was the dominant factor, followed by presenteeism (37%) and caregiver absenteeism (19%). Poisson regression analyses revealed that women, people in the 18-29 year age group, and respondents with 'doctor-diagnosed asthma' reported more lost days than the rest of the group. Conclusion: In Sweden, the cost of rhinitis is euro 2.7 billion a year in terms of lost productivity. A reduction in lost productivity of 1 day per individual and year would potentially save euro 528 million.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据