Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 225–244 | Cite as

A Review of Self-Report Instruments Measuring Health-Related Work Productivity

A Patient-Reported Outcomes Perspective
  • Manishi PrasadEmail author
  • Peter Wahlqvist
  • Rich Shikiar
  • Ya-Chen Tina Shih
Review Article

Abstract

Health impairment often leads to work impairment in the form of both absenteeism and presenteeism (i.e. reduced productivity while at work). Several self-report productivity instruments have been designed over the past few years to measure the impact of illness on productivity at work and/or in non-work activities.

In a review of the literature we identified six generic subjective instruments — the Endicott Work Productivity Scale, Health and Labor Questionnaire, Health and Work Questionnaire, Health and Work Performance Questionnaire, Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) — that could theoretically be used in any working population. These instruments were usually validated against other subjective measures (such as health-related QOL).

Each productivity instrument has benefits in certain research settings, but the psychometric properties of the WPAI have been assessed most extensively. It was the most frequently used instrument and has also been modified to measure productivity reductions associated with specific diseases (e.g. allergic rhinitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, chronic hand dermatitis). The WLQ has also been tested extensively to measure the general health impact and impact of specific conditions. Two migraine-specific subjective instruments were also identified: the Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire and the Migraine Work and Productivity Loss Questionnaire, of which the latter was found to have better psychometric properties.

Productivity outcomes are useful in that they characterise the impact of an illness in the workplace and show the effect of treatment on productivity. Evidence of psychometric properties and generalisability of different instruments was found to a varying degree. Thus, further research is needed to assess the accuracy and usefulness of individual instruments in certain research settings. Health-related productivity has been increasingly recognised as an important component of the burden of illness associated with a given disease; without it, one cannot reliably assess this burden.

Keywords

Migraine Allergic Rhinitis Fexofenadine Productivity Instrument Work Limitation Questionnaire 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors received funding from AstraZeneca R&D Mölndal, Mölndal, Sweden for the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Gold MR. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lerner DJ, Amick III BC, Malspeis S, et al. A national survey of health-related work limitations among employed persons in the United States. Disabil Rehabil 2000; 22 (5): 225–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ware J. SF-36 health study: manual and interpretation guide. Boston (MA): Health Outcomes Trust, 1993Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shumaker S, Anderson R. Psychological tests and scales. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990: 95–113Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juniper E, Guyatt G, Jaeschke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 49–56Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ 1999; 8 (1): 41–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowling A. Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales. 2nd ed. Buckingham (PA): Open University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York (NY): McGraw Hill, 1994Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hays R, Anderson R. Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials. In: Staquet M, Hays R, Fayers P. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sudman S, Bradburn NM, Schwarz N. Thinking about answers: the application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bas Publishers, 1996Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muldoon MF, Barger SC, Flory JD, et al. What are quality of life measurements measuring? BMJ 1998; 316: 542–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burke L, Piault E. Patient-reported measures in drug development: FDA perspective. In: Chassany C, Caulin C. Healthrelated quality of life and patient-reported outcomes: scientific and useful outcome criteria. Paris: Springer-Verlag, 2003: 117–22Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart WF, Ricci J, Leotta CR, et al. Self-report of healthrelated lost productivity work time: bias and the optimal recall period [abstract]. Value Health 2001; 4: A421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Endicott J, Nee J. Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacol Bull 1997; 33 (1): 13–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care: the health and labor questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12 (3): 405–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, et al. The World Health Organization health and work performance questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45: 156–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halpern MT, Shikiar R, Rentz AM, et al. Impact of smoking status on workplace absenteeism and productivity. Tob Control 2001; 10 (3): 233–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lerner D, Amick III BC, Rogers WH, et al. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care 2001; 39 (1): 72–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (5): 353–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reilly M, Tanner A, Meltzer EO. Work, classroom, and activity impairment instruments: validation studies in allergic rhinitis. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 11 (5): 278–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wahlqvist P, Carlsson J, Stalhammar NO, et al. Validity of a work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for patients with symptoms of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (WPAI-GERD): results from a cross-sectional study. Value Health 2002; 5 (2): 106–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reilly MC, Lavin PT, Kahler KH, et al. Validation of the dermatology life quality index and the work productivity and activity impairment-chronic hand dermatitis questionnaire in chronic hand dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003; 48 (1): 128–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K, et al. Reliability of the migraine disability assessment score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999; 19 (2): 107–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, et al. Validity of the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 2000; 88 (1): 41–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lerner DJ, Amick III BC, Malspeis S, et al. The migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire: concepts and design. Qual Life Res 1999; 8 (8): 699–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davies GM, Santanello N, Gerth W, et al. Validation of a migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire for use in migraine studies. Cephalalgia 1999; 19 (5): 497–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chirban JT, Jacobs RJ, Warren J, et al. The 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) and the work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaire in panic disorder. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 1997; 1 (3): 154–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lerner D, Reed JI, Massarotti E, et al. The work limitations questionnaire’s validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55 (2): 197–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2 (1): 67–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34 (9): 1005–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs. Health Econ 1994; 3 (6): 385–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Productivity costs measurement through quality of life?: a response to the recommendation of the Washington panel. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 253–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ettigi P, Meyerhoff AS, Chirban JT, et al. The quality of life and employment in panic disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis 1997; 185 (6): 368–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meltzer EO, Casale TB, Nathan RA, et al. Once-daily fexofenadine HCl improves quality of life and reduces work and activity impairment in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999; 83 (4): 311–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thompson AK, Finn AF, Schoenwetter WF. Effect of 60mg twice-daily fexofenadine HCl on quality of life, work and classroom productivity, and regular activity in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 43 (1 Pt 1): 24–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jacobs RJ, Davidson JR, Gupta S, et al. The effects of clonazepam on quality of life and work productivity in panic disorder. Am J Manag Care 1997; 3 (8): 1187–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tanner L, Reilly M, Meltzer EO, et al. Effect of fexofenadine HCl on quality of life and work, classroom and daily activity impairment in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Am J Manag Care 1999; 5 Suppl. 4: S235–47Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wittchen HU, Beloch E. The impact of social phobia on quality of life. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1996; 11 Suppl. 3: 15–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dean BB, Crawley JA, Schmitt CM, et al. The burden of illness of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: impact on work productivity. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 1309–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Burke LB. US regulation of pharmaceutical outcomes research. Value Health 2001; 4 (1): 5–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morris LA, Miller DW. The regulation of patient-reported outcome claims: need for a flexible standard. Value Health 2002; 5 (4): 372–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Radensky P. Regulation of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research. Value Health 2001; 4 (1): 12–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Berndt ER, Bailit HL, Keller MB, et al. Health care use and atwork productivity among employees with mental disorders. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000; 19 (4): 244–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Burton WN, Conti DJ, Chen CY, et al. The role of health risk factors and disease on worker productivity. J Occup Environ Med 1999; 41 (10): 863–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Burton WN, Conti DJ, Chen CY, et al. The impact of allergies and allergy treatment on worker productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2001; 43 (1): 64–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Landy FJ, Farr JL. The measurement of work performance: methods, theory, and applications. New York: Academic Press, 1983Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lerner D, Amick BC, Lee JC, et al. Relationship of employeereported work limitations to work productivity. Med Care 2003; 41 (5): 649–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Berger ML, Murray JF, Xu J, et al. Alternative valuations of work loss and productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2001; 43 (1): 18–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lynch W, Riedel JE, editors. Measuring employee productivity: a guide to self-assessment tools. 2001 ed. Scottsdale (AZ): Institute for Health and Productivity Management, 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manishi Prasad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Wahlqvist
    • 2
  • Rich Shikiar
    • 3
  • Ya-Chen Tina Shih
    • 4
  1. 1.MEDTAP International, Inc.BethesdaUSA
  2. 2.AstraZeneca R&D MölndalMölndalSweden
  3. 3.MEDTAP International, Inc.SeattleUSA
  4. 4.The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations