↓ Skip to main content

Some adjustments to the human capital and the friction cost methods

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Some adjustments to the human capital and the friction cost methods
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10198-018-0969-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonis Targoutzidis

Abstract

The cost of lost output is a major component of the total cost of illness estimates, especially those for the cost of workplace accidents and diseases. The two main methods for estimating this output, namely the human capital and the friction cost method, lead to very different results, particularly for cases of long-term absence, which makes the choice of method a critical dilemma. Two hidden assumptions, one for each method, are identified in this paper: for human capital method, the assumption that had the accident not happened the individual would remain alive, healthy and employed until retirement, and for friction cost method, the assumption that any created vacancy is covered by an unemployed person. Relevant adjustments to compensate for their impact are proposed: (a) to depreciate the estimates of the human capital method for the risks of premature death, disability or unemployment and (b) to multiply the estimates of the friction cost method with the expected number of job shifts that will be caused by a disability. The impact of these adjustments on the final estimates is very important in terms of magnitude and can lead to better results for each method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 11 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,966,514
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#457
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,001
of 347,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 347,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.