↓ Skip to main content

Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluations: Past, Present, Future

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
Title
Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluations: Past, Present, Future
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, April 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40273-013-0056-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke Krol, Werner Brouwer, Frans Rutten

Abstract

Productivity costs occur when the productivity of individuals is affected by illness, treatment, disability or premature death. The objective of this paper was to review past and current developments related to the inclusion, identification, measurement and valuation of productivity costs in economic evaluations. The main debates in the theory and practice of economic evaluations of health technologies described in this review have centred on the questions of whether and how to include productivity costs, especially productivity costs related to paid work. The past few decades have seen important progress in this area. There are important sources of productivity costs other than absenteeism (e.g. presenteeism and multiplier effects in co-workers), but their exact influence on costs remains unclear. Different measurement instruments have been developed over the years, but which instrument provides the most accurate estimates has not been established. Several valuation approaches have been proposed. While empirical research suggests that productivity costs are best included in the cost side of the cost-effectiveness ratio, the jury is still out regarding whether the human capital approach or the friction cost approach is the most appropriate valuation method to do so. Despite the progress and the substantial amount of scientific research, a consensus has not been reached on either the inclusion of productivity costs in economic evaluations or the methods used to produce productivity cost estimates. Such a lack of consensus has likely contributed to ignoring productivity costs in actual economic evaluations and is reflected in variations in national health economic guidelines. Further research is needed to lessen the controversy regarding the estimation of health-related productivity costs. More standardization would increase the comparability and credibility of economic evaluations taking a societal perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 193 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 20%
Researcher 31 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 16%
Other 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 49 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 26 13%
Social Sciences 17 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 58 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,523,553
of 24,758,493 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#74
of 1,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,922
of 198,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,758,493 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 198,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.