Predicting Productivity Losses from Health-Related Quality of Life Using Patient Data

  • Clara Mukuria
  • Donna Rowen
  • Mónica Hernández-Alava
  • Simon Dixon
  • Roberta Ara
Original Research Article



This paper estimates productivity loss using the health of the patient in order to allow indirect estimation of these costs for inclusion in economic evaluation.


Data from two surveys of inpatients [Health outcomes data repository (HODaR) sample (n = 42,442) and health improvement and patient outcomes (HIPO) sample (n = 6046)] were used. The number of days off paid employment or normal activities (excluding paid employment) was modelled using the health of the patients measured by the EQ-5D, international classification of diseases (ICD) chapters, and other health and sociodemographic data. Two-part models (TPMs) and zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) models were identified as the most appropriate specifications, given large spikes at the minimum and maximum days for the dependent variable. Analysis was undertaken separately for the two datasets to account for differences in recall period and identification of those who were employed.


Models were able to reflect the large spike at the minimum (zero days) but not the maximum, with TPMs doing slightly better than the ZINB model. The EQ-5D was negatively associated with days off employment and normal activities in both datasets, but ICD chapters only had statistically significant coefficients for some chapters in the HODaR.


TPMs can be used to predict productivity loss associated with the health of the patient to inform economic evaluation. Limitations include recall and response bias and identification of who is employed in the HODaR, while the HIPO suffers from a small sample size. Both samples exclude some patient groups.


  1. 1.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang W, Bansback N, Anis AH. Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: a critical review. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(2):185–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Black C, Frost D. Health at work-an independent review of sickness absence. London, UK: The Stationery Office; 2011. Available at Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Jonsson L, Kobelt G, Zethraeus N. Why should economic evaluations of medical innovations have a societal perspective? Office of Health Econo Brief; 2009. Available at
  5. 5.
    Krol M, Brouwer W, Rutten F. Productivity costs in economic evaluations: past, present, future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(7):537–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(14):1172–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, Bonsel G, Rutten FF. Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care: the health and labor questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12(03):405–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brouwer WB, Meerding WJ, Lamers LM, Severens JL. The relationship between productivity and health-related QOL. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(3):209–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamers LM, Meerding WJ, Severens JL, Brouwer WB. The relationship between productivity and health-related quality of life: an empirical exploration in persons with low back pain. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(3):805–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouwmans CAM, Vemer P, van Straten A, Tan SS, Hakkaart-van Roijen L. Health-related quality of life and productivity losses in patients with depression and anxiety disorders. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(4):420–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kawalec P, Malinowski K. Disease activity, quality of life and indirect costs of reduced productivity at work, generated by Polish patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Reumatologia. 2015;53(6):301–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krol M, Stolk E, Brouwer W. Predicting productivity based on EQ-5D: an explorative study. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(5):465–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Currie CJ, McEwan P, Peters JR, Patel TC, Dixon S. The routine collation of health outcomes data from hospital treated subjects in the health outcomes data repository (HODaR): descriptive analysis from the first 20,000 subjects. Value Health. 2005;8(5):581–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brooks R, Group E. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rowen D, Dixon S, Hernández-Alava M, Mukuria C. Estimating informal care inputs associated with EQ-5D for use in economic evaluation. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(6):733–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Selected papers of Hirotugu Akaike. Springer, Berlin; 1998, pp. 199–213.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat. 1978;6(2):461–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dixon S, Walker M, Salek S. Incorporating carer effects into economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(1):43–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clara Mukuria
    • 1
    • 2
  • Donna Rowen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mónica Hernández-Alava
    • 1
    • 2
  • Simon Dixon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roberta Ara
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Health Economics and Decision ScienceUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations