Advancing Lost Productivity Measurement in Economic Evaluations: Evidence Priorities From a Targeted Literature Review and Multi-Stakeholder Workshop
Author(s)
Kate Rosettie, MPH1, Benjamin G. Cohen, MPH, PhD2, Eileen Kennedy, BA2, Caroline Kacergis, MPH2, Robert Brett McQueen, BA, MA, PhD3.
1Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, USA, 2Stage Analytics, Suwanee, GA, USA, 3University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science, Denver, CO, USA.
1Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, USA, 2Stage Analytics, Suwanee, GA, USA, 3University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science, Denver, CO, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies vary in their integration of economic impacts from lost productivity due to morbidity and mortality. Lost productivity is infrequently measured and, when it is measured, inconsistent methods are used, and the total impact of lost productivity is often underestimated. We aimed to identify priority areas to improve measurement and valuation of productivity loss through stakeholder-driven recommendations.
METHODS: We conducted a targeted literature review (TLR) of economic evaluations and HTA reports from the previous five years to understand the measurement and valuation of lost productivity. Our findings informed a workshop with eight health economists and health policy experts. Through structured discussions and prioritization exercises, we identified evidence priorities, valuation strategies, and recommendations for comprehensive data collection.
RESULTS: The TLR identified a strong reliance on wage-based valuations focused on absenteeism and a limited valuation of non-work productivity and presenteeism. Workshop participants (N=8) highlighted inconsistencies in productivity measurement and provided methodological recommendations. Participants broadly agreed on several priorities: (1) collecting longitudinal data to capture real-world productivity trends, (2) evaluating non-work productivity (e.g., caregiving), and (3) improving and standardizing methods to measure presenteeism. Beyond the three main priorities, participants proposed including fringe benefits in work-related valuations, disaggregating productivity components when presenting results to improve transparency, avoiding methods that may perpetuate inequities, and developing fit-for-purpose tools to measure real-world productivity losses across work and disease contexts. While participants strongly supported advancing evidence generation and consistent methods, questions remained regarding how to best address enduring methodological challenges and their ultimate impact on economic evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our stakeholder-driven findings emphasize the need for comprehensive, longitudinal data collection that captures absenteeism, presenteeism, and non-work productivity for consistent applications in HTA. Future research should examine how these recommendations can be implemented in clinical trial and real-world settings to inform HTAs and policymaking.
METHODS: We conducted a targeted literature review (TLR) of economic evaluations and HTA reports from the previous five years to understand the measurement and valuation of lost productivity. Our findings informed a workshop with eight health economists and health policy experts. Through structured discussions and prioritization exercises, we identified evidence priorities, valuation strategies, and recommendations for comprehensive data collection.
RESULTS: The TLR identified a strong reliance on wage-based valuations focused on absenteeism and a limited valuation of non-work productivity and presenteeism. Workshop participants (N=8) highlighted inconsistencies in productivity measurement and provided methodological recommendations. Participants broadly agreed on several priorities: (1) collecting longitudinal data to capture real-world productivity trends, (2) evaluating non-work productivity (e.g., caregiving), and (3) improving and standardizing methods to measure presenteeism. Beyond the three main priorities, participants proposed including fringe benefits in work-related valuations, disaggregating productivity components when presenting results to improve transparency, avoiding methods that may perpetuate inequities, and developing fit-for-purpose tools to measure real-world productivity losses across work and disease contexts. While participants strongly supported advancing evidence generation and consistent methods, questions remained regarding how to best address enduring methodological challenges and their ultimate impact on economic evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our stakeholder-driven findings emphasize the need for comprehensive, longitudinal data collection that captures absenteeism, presenteeism, and non-work productivity for consistent applications in HTA. Future research should examine how these recommendations can be implemented in clinical trial and real-world settings to inform HTAs and policymaking.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
P10
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Methodological & Statistical Research, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
PRO & Related Methods, Survey Methods
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas