Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review

Kigozi, Jesse; Jowett, Sue; Lewis, Martyn; Barton, Pelham; Coast, Joanna

doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0652-y

Cited by 66 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This friction period will likely depend on the location, industry, firm, and category of worker (3). Finally, the costs of compensation mechanisms (eg, costs of hiring workers) should ideally be included (17,18). A third approach, the USP, argues that productivity should not be measured separately since it is part of quality of life estimates in health state utilities such as qualityadjusted life years (QALY) (2,3,12,19).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, Steel et al some criticize the HCA because it takes a long(er) time horizon, where productivity costs can become quite substantial (eg, when they accumulate over several years) and may include lost productivity due to disability or early retirement (14). The FCA instead proposes to limit long-term production losses to the "friction period" [the time needed to replace a sick worker (16)] and to adjust shorter absence spells for the "elasticity of labor to output" -the less than proportional change in output per unit of labor -to reflect compensation mechanisms (16,17). This friction period will likely depend on the location, industry, firm, and category of worker (3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Steel¹,

Godderis²,

Luyten³

2018

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Productivity estimation is a key factor in demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of occupational health and safety (OHS). However, the studies analysed in this systematic review lack standardization, exclude important factors, and the precision, validity and reliability of estimates widely differs. Researchers should be aware of how the method and precision of estimating productivity affects results, and, ultimately, the economic attractiveness of OHS. Key terms: absenteeism; cost-effectiveness; economic evaluation; friction cost; human capital; indirect cost; measurement; methodology; occupational health; occupational health and safety; presenteeism; productivity estimation; review; systematic review; valuation; work This article in PubMed: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29405241 Additional materialPlease note that there is additional material available belonging to this article on the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health -website. Scand J Work Environ Health -online first 1Review Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review by Jonas Steel, MSc, 1 Lode Godderis, MD,2,3 Jeroen Luyten, PhD 1,4 Steel J, Godderis L, Luyten J. Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health -online first. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3715Objectives Occupational health and safety (OHS) interventions' effect on worker productivity is an essential, but complex element of the value of these programs. The trustworthiness of economic evaluation studies, aiming to provide guidance to decision-makers in the field of OHS, depends at least partly on how accurately productivity changes are measured. We aim to review the methods used to estimate productivity changes in recently published economic evaluations of OHS interventions. MethodsWe performed systematic searches of economic evaluations of OHS programs published between 2007 and 2017 and reviewed these studies' methods to quantify the programs' impact on worker productivity ResultsOf the 90 identified studies, 44 used a human capital approach, 17 a friction cost approach, 13 stated productivity in natural units (eg, a cost-per-absence-day-avoided), 7 made use of compensation expenses, 4 used output-based methods, 4 an "ad hoc" approach, and 1 study did not state its method. Different approaches were combined in 19 studies. Within these methods, we observed a wide diversity in their precise implementation, especially regarding the measurement and valuation of absenteeism and presenteeism.Conclusions Productivity is a key element of the economic attractiveness of investing in OHS. Economic evaluation studies of OHS would benefit from more methodological standardization in their approach to quantifying productivity change. Future research should better account for the methodological uncertainty that occurs in estimating it in order to demonstrate the impact that particular choices and approaches to productivity estimation ca...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Steel¹,

Godderis²,

Luyten³

2018

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A friction period of 90 days was assumed as a point estimate throughout the study, based on the median value of a systematic review of productivity costs in various countries [45]. The friction period should ideally be based on macroeconomic characteristics of the country where the approach is applied [73].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, the friction cost method was used, with a friction period of 90 days, which was the median duration of 46 published productivity cost studies [45]. A sensitivity analysis of this assumption is provided in Sect.…”

Section: Indirect Costs: Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic and Critical Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Pharmacotherapeutics in Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Mohiuddin

2014

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The main objective of this study was to derive cost estimates of five major foodborne illnesses (campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC), yersiniosis and shigellosis) in Sweden. These estimates provide a necessary contribution to perform future cost-benefit analyses aimed at reducing the burden of foodborne disease. A secondary aim was to obtain estimates of the true number of cases that occur in the community, thus providing necessary ground for calculating costs. Methods The true number of cases for each foodborne illness was simulated by multiplying the reported number of cases by sequential multipliers, one for each potential source of information loss about a case. This assessment of the true number of cases was then used to estimate the number of cases of sequelae for each illness. An incidence-based analysis was then used to calculate direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as indirect costs. Data for estimating the true number of cases for each illness were primarily based on an expert panel, while the derivation of costs mainly utilized national registries, databases and published literature. Results The estimated number of cases was between 7-and 11-fold higher than the reported number of cases, indicating the importance of taking information loss into account when calculating costs. By far the most common pathogen of the five was campylobacter, with an estimated 101,719 (90% credibility interval [CI] 59,640-158,025) human cases occurring annually. For salmonella, 19,678 (90% CI 8394-40,456) cases were estimated to occur each year, while the other three pathogens were less common, with a yearly incidence of approximately 2500-5500 cases each. The total cost for the five pathogens (including sequelae) amounted to €142 million annually. Campylobacter was the most costly pathogen, representing 69% of the total costs. Salmonellosis and EHEC constituted 18 and 9% of these costs, respectively, while yersiniosis and shigellosis represented approximately 2% each. Costs for sequelae were significant and accounted for approximately 50% of the total costs. Conclusions Our simulations indicated that campylobacter infection was more common and more costly than salmonella, EHEC, yersinia and shigella combined. Estimated costs for all illnesses were highly influenced by (1) considering potential information losses about cases in the population (which increased costs 7-to 11-fold), and (2) taking account of postinfection sequelae (which doubled the costs). Key Points for Decision MakersThis study estimates the difference between registered and actual number of cases in the community for five major foodborne diseases. Potential post-infection sequelae are included in the analysis. These considerations are crucial in order to assess the actual societal burden of the five pathogens.The study also estimates total societal costs and costs per case for the five pathogens, results that can be utilized in future cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness studies.

show abstract

“…However, the use of the friction cost approach has largely been limited to the Netherlands, where it was first developed (15). It is also more complicated than the human capital approach as it requires detailed and specific information about labour markets which change over time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on the Nice Decision to Reject Patient Production Losses

Shearer¹,

Byford

Birch

2017

Int J Technol Assess Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Patient production losses occur when individuals' capacities to work, whether paid or unpaid, are impaired by illness, treatment, disability or death. There is controversy about whether and how to include patient production losses in economic evaluations in health care. Patient production losses have not previously been considered when evaluating medications for reimbursement under the UK National Health Service (NHS). Proposals for value based assessment of health technologies in the UK created renewed interest in whether and how to include costs from a wider societal perspective, such as patient production losses, within economic evaluation of health care interventions. Methods: A narrative review was undertaken of theoretical, ethical and policy issues that might inform decisions that involve the normative question of whether or not to include patient production losses in economic evaluation. Results: it seems difficult to reconcile the implications of including patient production losses with the objectives of a health care system dedicated to providing universal health care coverage without regard to patients' ability to pay.Conclusions: Tax payer funded health care systems may legitimately adopt maximands other than health gain but these will be at the opportunity cost of less than maximum health gains.

show abstract

Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review

Cited by 66 publications

References 75 publications

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

A Systematic and Critical Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Pharmacotherapeutics in Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Reflections on the Nice Decision to Reject Patient Production Losses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About