Measurement Instruments of Productivity Loss of Paid and Unpaid Work: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Suitability for Health Economic Evaluations From a Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed (1) to perform a systematic literature review of instruments for measuring productivity loss of paid and unpaid work and (2) to assess the suitability (in terms of identification, measurement, and valuation) of these instruments for use in health economic evaluations from a societal perspective. METHODS: Articles published from 2018 were sourced from PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and Econlit. Using 2 separate search strategies, eligible economic evaluations and validation studies were selected and unique measurement instruments identified. A data-extraction form was developed by studying previous literature and consulting an international panel of experts in the field of productivity costs. This data-extraction form was applied to assess the suitability of instruments for use in economic evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 5982 articles were retrieved from the databases, of which 99 economic evaluations and 9 validation studies were included in the review. A total of 42 unique measurement instruments were identified. Nine instruments provided quantified measures of absenteeism, presenteeism, and unpaid work. Five instruments supplied the necessary information to enable the use of at least 1 common valuation method. The Health and Labour Questionnaire-Short Form, Health and Labour Questionnaire, and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire met both criteria. Nevertheless, the developers replaced the Health and Labour Questionnaire-Short Form and Health and Labour Questionnaire by the more recently developed Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Although many instruments for measuring productivity loss were identified, most were not suitable for capturing productivity changes for economic evaluations from a societal perspective. Future research can benefit from this study by making an informed instrument choice for the measurement of productivity loss of paid and unpaid work.

Measurement and evaluation of quality of life and well-being in individuals having or having had fertility problems: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were: (1) to identify which measurement instruments are used in practice to assess the quality of life or well-being of individuals with and without (sub)fertility; (2) to describe the design and outcomes of studies comparing quality of life or well-being of individuals with and without fertility problems; and (3) to determine which of the outcomes of the identified studies could be used in cost-utility studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed of studies published before July 2018, using multiple databases. Included studies investigated (health-related) quality of life or well-being of individuals with fertility problems. The applied instruments were assessed, as were the outcomes and suitability for use in cost-utility studies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Twelve distinct instruments of measurement were applied: two generic quality-of-life instruments, five generic well-being instruments and five disease-specific instruments. Most studies found negative associations in one or more domains assessing fertility problems and quality of life or well-being. However, two studies found the opposite. None of the studies reported outcomes relevant for cost-utility studies. CONCLUSION: Quality of life and well-being related to having fertility problems are regularly studied. However, the reported information is not suitable for use in cost-utility studies. There is a clear need for studies investigating the impact of fertility problems on quality of life in a way that outcomes can be compared across studies and disease areas.