ReviewPharmacoEconomics - open2026
Advancing Lost Productivity Measurement in Economic Evaluations: Evidence Priorities from a Targeted Literature Review and Expert Workshop.
Review in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProductivity losses from illness, treatment, and informal caregiving impose a substantial economic burden on patients, caregivers, employers, and society in the United States (US), but measurement remains inconsistent and often omits key domains, such as presenteeism and unpaid non-market work productivity. These gaps limit the integration of productivity into economic evaluations and policy and may lead to undervaluation of interventions that improve health and reduce disease burden.
objectiveThe aim was to identify evidence priorities and methodological improvements for measuring and valuing productivity in US economic evaluations.
methodsA targeted literature review (TLR) of US-based studies published from 2020 to 2024 was conducted to evaluate measurement of absenteeism, presenteeism, or unpaid non-market work productivity. Definitions, instruments, valuation methods, and reporting practices were extracted. Findings informed a virtual workshop with eight stakeholders, who completed prioritization exercises and participated in facilitated discussions to refine evidence priorities and methodological recommendations.
resultsThirty studies met the TLR inclusion criteria. Absenteeism was assessed in 77%, unpaid non-market work productivity in 67%, and presenteeism in 37%. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire was used in 40%. Only 30% assessed informal caregiving-related productivity losses, 23% included fringe benefits, and 37% used longitudinal designs. In the workshop, stakeholders prioritized four predefined domains for future evidence generation and value assessment: (1) measuring longitudinal fluctuations in productivity by disease severity; (2) valuing unpaid non-market work productivity; (3) measuring presenteeism; and (4) disaggregating productivity by job types and wfork environments. Recommendations included transparent, perspective-specific valuation; capturing total compensation in absenteeism costs; disaggregating time-based and monetary outcomes; and developing instruments suitable for remote, hybrid, and gig work.
conclusionsProductivity losses are an underrecognized component of disease burden in the US. More consistent use of validated instruments, particularly for measuring longitudinal and unpaid non-market work productivity, may improve the reliability and policy relevance of productivity estimates.
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.