Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38874846›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2024

A Systematic Review of Methods for Estimating Productivity Losses due to Illness or Caregiving in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Ery Setiawan, Sarah A Cassidy-Seyoum, Kamala Thriemer, Natalie Carvalho, Angela Devine

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Paid and unpaid productivity losses across 28 European countries due to excess deaths and COVID-19 deaths from 2020 to 2023.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Burden of hypertension-related diseases in Eastern Mediterranean region.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Ery SetiawanGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
Sarah A Cassidy-SeyoumGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
Kamala ThriemerGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
Natalie CarvalhoMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Angela DevineGlobal and Tropical Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia. angela.devine@menzies.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3321-8706

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 2025362
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProductivity losses are often included in costing studies and economic evaluations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of disease. Global guidance on estimating productivity losses is sparse, especially for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) where informal and unpaid work remains dominant. This study aims to describe current practices for valuing productivity losses in LMICs.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of studies published before April 2022 using three databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. We included any costing or economic evaluation study conducted in a LMIC that provided methodological details on how the monetary value for productivity losses was estimated. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies.

resultsA total of 281 articles were included. While most studies did not specify the overall approach used to measure and value productivity losses (58%), the human capital approach was the most frequently used approach to measure productivity losses when this was clearly stated (39%). The most common methods to estimate a monetary value for productivity losses were market wages (51%), self-reported wages (28%) and macroeconomic measures (15%).

conclusionReporting standards for productivity losses in LMIC settings have room for improvement. While market wages were the most frequently used method to estimate the monetary value of productivity losses, this relies on context-specific data availability. Until a consensus is reached on if, when and how to include productivity losses in costing and economic evaluation studies, future studies could include a sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of different methods for estimating the monetary value of productivity losses.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessDeveloping CountriesEfficiencyCaregiversHumansSalaries and Fringe Benefits

Identifiers

PMID38874846
PMCPMC11249595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.