↓ Skip to main content

How to Estimate Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, February 2014
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
Title
How to Estimate Productivity Costs in Economic Evaluations
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40273-014-0132-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke Krol, Werner Brouwer

Abstract

Productivity costs are frequently omitted from economic evaluations, despite their often strong impact on cost-effectiveness outcomes. This neglect may be partly explained by the lack of standardization regarding the methodology of estimating productivity costs. This paper aims to contribute to standardization of productivity cost methodology by offering practical guidance on how to estimate productivity costs in economic evaluations. The paper discusses the identification, measurement and valuation of productivity losses. It is recommended to include not only productivity losses related to absenteeism from and reduced productivity at paid work, but also those related to unpaid work. Hence, it is recommended to use a measurement instrument including questions about both paid and unpaid productivity, such as the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) or the Valuation of Lost Productivity (VOLP). We indicate how to apply the friction cost and the human capital approach and give practical guidance on deriving final cost estimates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 178 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 20%
Student > Master 34 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Other 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 53 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 27 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 57 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,215,401
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#311
of 1,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,231
of 308,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 308,347 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.