Abstract
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference48 articles.
1. ISPOR (2018) Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. https://Tools.Ispor.Org/Peguidelines/. https://tools.ispor.org/peguidelines/.
2. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013 | Guidance and Guidelines | NICE. n.d. Retrieved October 16, 2018 from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword.
3. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Krol, M., Papenburg, J., Koopmanschap, M., & Brouwer, W. (2011). Do productivity costs matter?: The impact of including productivity costs on the incremental costs of interventions targeted at depressive disorders. PharmacoEconomics, 29(7), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.2165/11539970-000000000-00000.
5. Olsen, J. A., & Richardson, J. (1999). Production gains from health care: What should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses? Social. Science & Medicine, 49(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00116-1.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献