ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025
Routine measurement in low back pain; towards a pragmatic patient-reported productivity cost outcome measurement using the institute for medical technology assessment productivity cost questionnaire.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring, valuing, and incorporating patient and caregiver productivity costs in economic evaluations: a scoping review and environmental scan.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Biopsychosocial Model-Based Care versus Routine Physical Therapy on Clinical, Sensorimotor, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe iMTA productivity cost questionnaire (iPCQ) has been recommended as a measurement tool for productivity cost, however, its use in routine care is hindered by the length of this questionnaire (18 questions). This study developed and tested a short-form (SF-) iPCQ.
methodA secondary analysis of the Groningen Spine Cohort's baseline data from patients with low back pain referred for tertiary care was performed. Six SFs were evaluated against the comprehensive iPCQ. Spearman correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, agreement), standard error of measurement (SEM), and Bland-Altman's plot tested the congruence of the SFs with the comprehensive iPCQ.
resultsThe sample consisted of 1220 patients with low back pain. The SF version with the highest correlation (SF-3; 7 items) with the comprehensive iPCQ had r = 0.99, ICC = 0.99, SEM = 295, while the SF with the least number of items (SF-6; 5 items) had r = 0.84, ICC = 0.91, SEM = 2063. The mean productivity cost estimates of SF-3 and SF-6 were €3414 (95% CI: 3036-3791) and €3333 (95% CI: 2970-3696) respectively while that for the comprehensive iPCQ amounted to €3456 (95% CI: 3189-3720).
conclusionA SF with seven questions was developed with a high agreement with the comprehensive iPCQ. Initial clinimetric testing was satisfactory. Further assessment is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.