↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, March 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Predicting Productivity Losses from Health-Related Quality of Life Using Patient Data
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40258-017-0326-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clara Mukuria, Donna Rowen, Mónica Hernández-Alava, Simon Dixon, Roberta Ara

Abstract

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.

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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 20 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 20 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 10 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,779,940
of 23,979,422 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#110
of 814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,376
of 312,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,979,422 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 312,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 99% of its contemporaries.