Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34512485›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Valuation of Lost Productivity in Caregivers: A Validation Study.

Aaron Gelfand, Julie Sou, Rick Sawatzky, Katrina Prescott, Alison Pearce, Aslam H Anis, Christine Lee, Wei Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Societal, occupational, and economic considerations for women with (M)INOCA: a narrative review.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Critical analysis of instruments for assessment of presenteeism: an integrative review.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Aaron GelfandSchool of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Julie SouCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Rick SawatzkyCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Katrina PrescottSection 2 Productions, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Alison PearceFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Aslam H AnisSchool of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Christine LeeDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Wei ZhangSchool of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to: (a) adapt the previously validated Valuation of Lost Productivity (VOLP) questionnaire for people with health problems, to a caregiver version to measure productivity losses associated with caregiving responsibilities, and (b) evaluate measurement feasibility and validity of an online version of the caregiver VOLP questionnaire.

methodsA mixed methods design was utilized. Qualitative methods, such as reviewing existing questionnaires that measured caregiver work productivity losses and performing one-on-one interviews with caregivers, were used for VOLP adaptation and online conversion. Quantitative methods were used to evaluate feasibility and validity of the online VOLP. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire for caregivers was included to compare its absenteeism and presenteeism outcomes and their correlations with VOLP outcomes.

resultsWhen adapting the VOLP for caregivers, our qualitative analysis showed the importance of adding three major components: caregiving time, work productivity loss related to volunteer activities and caregivers' lost job opportunities. A total of 383 caregivers who completed online survey were included in our final quantitative analysis. We found small Spearman rank correlations between VOLP and WPAI, observing a larger correlation between their absenteeism [

conclusionThe study provides evidence of the feasibility and preliminary validity evidence of the adapted VOLP caregiver questionnaire in measuring productivity losses due to caregiving responsibilities, when compared with the results for WPAI and the results from the previous patient-VOLP validation study.

Indexed as

absenteeismcaregiverpresenteeismproductivity lossvalidityValuation of Lost Productivity questionnaireWork Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID34512485
PMCPMC8432932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.