BackgroundHealth impairments can result in disability and changed work productivity imposing considerable costs for the employee, employer and society as a whole. A large number of instruments exist to measure health-related productivity changes; however their methodological quality remains unclear. This systematic review critically appraised the measurement properties in generic self-reported instruments that measure health-related productivity changes to recommend appropriate instruments for use in occupational and economic health practice.MethodsPubMed, PsycINFO, Econlit and Embase were systematically searched for studies whereof: (i) instruments measured health-related productivity changes; (ii) the aim was to evaluate instrument measurement properties; (iii) instruments were generic; (iv) ratings were self-reported; (v) full-texts were available. Next, methodological quality appraisal was based on COSMIN elements: (i) internal consistency; (ii) reliability; (iii) measurement error; (iv) content validity; (v) structural validity; (vi) hypotheses testing; (vii) cross-cultural validity; (viii) criterion validity; and (ix) responsiveness. Recommendations are based on evidence syntheses.ResultsThis review included 25 articles assessing the reliability, validity and responsiveness of 15 different generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes. Most studies evaluated criterion validity, none evaluated cross-cultural validity and information on measurement error is lacking. The Work Limitation Questionnaire (WLQ) was most frequently evaluated with moderate respectively strong positive evidence for content and structural validity and negative evidence for reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. Less frequently evaluated, the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS) showed strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, and moderate positive evidence for hypotheses testing and criterion validity. The Productivity and Disease Questionnaire (PRODISQ) yielded strong positive evidence for content validity, evidence for other properties is lacking. The other instruments resulted in mostly fair-to-poor quality ratings with limited evidence.ConclusionsDecisions based on the content of the instrument, usage purpose, target country and population, and available evidence are recommended. Until high-quality studies are in place to accurately assess the measurement properties of the currently available instruments, the WLQ and, in a Dutch context, the PRODISQ are cautiously preferred based on its strong positive evidence for content validity. Based on its strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, the SPS is cautiously recommended.

Objectives: Nurses are at elevated risk of burnout, anxiety and depressive disorders, and may then become less productive. This begs the question if a preventive intervention in the work setting might be cost-saving from a business perspective. Material and Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to evaluate the balance between the costs of a preventive intervention among nurses at elevated risk of mental health complaints and the cost offsets stemming from improved productivity. This evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized trial in a Dutch academic hospital. The control condition consisted of screening without feedback and unrestricted access to usual care (N = 206). In the experimental condition screen-positive nurses received personalized feedback and referral to the occupational physician (N = 207). Results: Subtracting intervention costs from the cost offsets due to reduced absenteeism and presenteeism resulted in net-savings of 244 euros per nurse when only absenteeism is regarded, and 651 euros when presenteeism is also taken into account. This corresponds to a return-on-investment of 5 euros up to 11 euros for every euro invested. Conclusions: Within half a year, the cost of offering the preventive intervention was more than recouped. Offering the preventive intervention represents a favorable business case as seen from the employer's perspective.

No abstract

No abstract

Attribute importance differs between DCE and RSE. The DCE had a differentiating effect on the relative importance of the attributes; however, determining relative importance using DCE should be done with caution as a lack of statistically significant difference between levels does not necessarily imply that the attribute is not important.