Quality appraisal of generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes: a systematic review

BMC Public Health

Angelique E de Rijk¹  Frans J Nijhuis²  Silvia MAA Evers³  Cindy YG Noben³ 

[1] CAPHRI School of Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands;CAPHRI School of Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

关键词: Validation;    Psychometrics;    Self-report;    Productivity;    Disability;    Presenteeism;    Absenteeism;   

Others  :  1161269
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-115

 received in 2013-11-01, accepted in 2014-01-31,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Health impairments can result in disability and changed work productivity imposing considerable costs for the employee, employer and society as a whole. A large number of instruments exist to measure health-related productivity changes; however their methodological quality remains unclear. This systematic review critically appraised the measurement properties in generic self-reported instruments that measure health-related productivity changes to recommend appropriate instruments for use in occupational and economic health practice.

Methods

PubMed, PsycINFO, Econlit and Embase were systematically searched for studies whereof: (i) instruments measured health-related productivity changes; (ii) the aim was to evaluate instrument measurement properties; (iii) instruments were generic; (iv) ratings were self-reported; (v) full-texts were available. Next, methodological quality appraisal was based on COSMIN elements: (i) internal consistency; (ii) reliability; (iii) measurement error; (iv) content validity; (v) structural validity; (vi) hypotheses testing; (vii) cross-cultural validity; (viii) criterion validity; and (ix) responsiveness. Recommendations are based on evidence syntheses.

Results

This review included 25 articles assessing the reliability, validity and responsiveness of 15 different generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes. Most studies evaluated criterion validity, none evaluated cross-cultural validity and information on measurement error is lacking. The Work Limitation Questionnaire (WLQ) was most frequently evaluated with moderate respectively strong positive evidence for content and structural validity and negative evidence for reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. Less frequently evaluated, the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS) showed strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, and moderate positive evidence for hypotheses testing and criterion validity. The Productivity and Disease Questionnaire (PRODISQ) yielded strong positive evidence for content validity, evidence for other properties is lacking. The other instruments resulted in mostly fair-to-poor quality ratings with limited evidence.

Conclusions

Decisions based on the content of the instrument, usage purpose, target country and population, and available evidence are recommended. Until high-quality studies are in place to accurately assess the measurement properties of the currently available instruments, the WLQ and, in a Dutch context, the PRODISQ are cautiously preferred based on its strong positive evidence for content validity. Based on its strong positive evidence for internal consistency and structural validity, the SPS is cautiously recommended.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Noben et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lambeek LC, Van Tulder MW, Swinkels IC, Koppes LL, Anema JR, Van Mechelen W: The trend in total cost of back pain in The Netherlands in the period 2002 to 2007. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011, 36:1050-1058.
• [2]Stock S, Redaelli M, Luengen M, Wendland G, Civello D, Lauterbach KW: Asthma: prevalence and cost of illness. Eur Respir J 2005, 25:47-53.
• [3]Van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM: A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands. Pain 1995, 62:233-240.
• [4]Goetzel RZ, Hawkins K, Ozminkowski RJ, Wang S: The health and productivity cost burden of the "top 10" physical and mental health conditions affecting six large U.S. employers in 1999. J Occup Environ Med 2003, 45:5-14.
• [5]Drummond M, McGuire A, Economic Evaluation in Helath Care: Merging theory with practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
• [6]Schultz AB, Chen CY, Edington DW: The cost and impact of health conditions on presenteeism to employers: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27:365-378.
• [7]Smit F, Willemse G, Koopmanschap M, Onrust S, Cuijpers P, Beekman A: Cost-effectiveness of preventing depression in primary care patients: randomised trial. Br J Psychiatry 2006, 188:330-336.
• [8]Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF: Productivity losses without absence: measurement validation and empirical evidence. Health Policy 1999, 48:13-27.
• [9]Hoeijenbos M, Bekkering T, Lamers L, Hendriks E, Van Tulder M, Koopmanschap M: Cost-effectiveness of an active implementation strategy for the Dutch physiotherapy guideline for low back pain. Health Policy 2005, 75:85-98.
• [10]Lotters F, Meerding WJ, Burdorf A: Reduced productivity after sickness absence due to musculoskeletal disorders and its relation to health outcomes. Scand J Work Environ Health 2005, 31:367-374.
• [11]Pauly MV, Nicholson S, Polsky D, Berger ML, Sharda C: Valuing reductions in on-the-job illness: 'presenteeism' from managerial and economic perspectives. Health economics 2008, 17:469-485.
• [12]Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD: A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2004, 22:165-184.
• [13]Prasad M, Wahlqvist P, Shikiar R, Shih YC: A review of self-report instruments measuring health-related work productivity: a patient-reported outcomes perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2004, 22:225-244.
• [14]Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, De Vet HC: Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 2011, 21:651-657.
• [15]Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, De Vet HC: Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:1115-1123.
• [16]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HC: The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:737-745.
• [17]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HC: The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010, 19:539-549.
• [18]Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, Van Tulder M: Editorial Board CBRG. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34:1929-1941.
• [19]Erickson SR, Guthrie S, VanEtten-Lee M, Himle J, Hoffman J, Santos SF, Janeck AS, Zivin K, Abelson JL: Severity of anxiety and work-related outcomes of patients with anxiety disorders. Depress Anxiety 2009, 26:1165-1171.
• [20]Meerding WJ, IJ W, Koopmanschap MA, Severens JL, Burdorf A: Health problems lead to considerable productivity loss at work among workers with high physical load jobs. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:517-523.
• [21]Ozminkowski RJ, Goetzel RZ, Chang S, Long S: The application of two health and productivity instruments at a large employer. J Occup Environ Med 2004, 46:635-648.
• [22]Zhang W, Bansback N, Boonen A, Young A, Singh A, Anis AH: Validity of the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire–general health version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2010, 12:R177. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Zhang W, Bansback N, Kopec J, Anis AH: Measuring time input loss among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: validity and reliability of the Valuation of Lost Productivity questionnaire. J Occup Environ Med 2011, 53:530-536.
• [24]Koopmanschap MA: PRODISQ: a modular questionnaire on productivity and disease for economic evaluation studies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005, 5:23-28.
• [25]Van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, Bonsel G, Rutten FF: Labor and health status in economic evaluation of health care. The Health and Labor Questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996, 12:405-415.
• [26]Beaton DE, Kennedy CA: Beyond return to work: testing a measure of at-work disability in workers with musculoskeletal pain. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:1869-1879.
• [27]Tang K, Pitts S, Solway S, Beaton D: Comparison of the psychometric properties of four at-work disability measures in workers with shoulder or elbow disorders. J Occup Rehabil 2009, 19:142-154.
• [28]Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Amick BC 3rd, Shannon HS, McMurtry R, Roth JH, Grewal R, Tang K, Beaton D: Validity and responsiveness of presenteeism scales in chronic work-related upper-extremity disorders. Phys Ther 2011, 91:254-266.
• [29]Endicott J, Nee J: Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS): a new measure to assess treatment effects. Psychopharmacol Bull 1997, 33:13-16.
• [30]Forst L, Friedman L, Chukwu A: Reliability of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. J Occup Environ Med 2010, 52:1201-1203.
• [31]Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ, Long SR: Development and reliability analysis of the Work Productivity Short Inventory (WPSI) instrument measuring employee health and productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2003, 45:743-762.
• [32]Kessler RC, Ames M, Hymel PA, Loeppke R, McKenas DK, Richling DE, Stang PE, Ustun TB: Using the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ) to evaluate the indirect workplace costs of illness. J Occup Environ Med 2004, 46:S23-S37.
• [33]Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, Berglund P, Cleary PD, McKenas D, Pronk N, Simon G, Stang P, Ustun TB, Wang P: The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med 2003, 45:156-174.
• [34]Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, Sharda CE, Berger ML, Turpin RS, Hackleman P, Gibson P, Holmes DM, Bendel T: Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2002, 44:14-20.
• [35]Kumar RN, Hass SL, Li JZ, Nickens DJ, Daenzer CL, Wathen LK: Validation of the Health-Related Productivity Questionnaire Diary (HRPQ-D) on a sample of patients with infectious mononucleosis: results from a phase 1 multicenter clinical trial. J Occup Environ Med 2003, 45:899-907.
• [36]Lerner D, Amick BC 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D: The Work Limitations Questionnaire. Med Care 2001, 39:72-85.
• [37]Lerner D, Reed JI, Massarotti E, Wester LM, Burke TA: The Work Limitations Questionnaire's validity and reliability among patients with osteoarthritis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002, 55:197-208.
• [38]Prochaska JO, Evers KE, Johnson JL, Castle PH, Prochaska JM, Sears LE, Rula EY, Pope JE: The well-being assessment for productivity: a well-being approach to presenteeism. J Occup Environ Med 2011, 53:735-742.
• [39]Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM: The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993, 4:353-365.
• [40]Shikiar R, Halpern MT, Rentz AM, Khan ZM: Development of the Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ): An instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation to worker health. Work 2004, 22:219-229.
• [41]Turpin RS, Ozminkowski RJ, Sharda CE, Collins JJ, Berger ML, Billotti GM, Baase CM, Olson MJ, Nicholson S: Reliability and validity of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale. J Occup Environ Med 2004, 46:1123-1133.
• [42]Walker N, Michaud K, Wolfe F: Work limitations among working persons with rheumatoid arthritis: results, reliability, and validity of the work limitations questionnaire in 836 patients. J Rheumatol 2005, 32:1006-1012.
• [43]Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Leotta C, Chee E: Validation of the work and health interview. Pharmacoeconomics 2004, 22:1127-1140.
• [44]Carley S, Lecky F: Statistical consideration for research. Emerg Med J 2003, 20:258-262.
• [45]Durand MJ, Vachon B, Hong QN, Imbeau D, Amick BC 3rd, Loisel P: The cross-cultural adaptation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire in Canadian French. Int J Rehabil Res 2004, 27:261-268.
• [46]Gallasch CH, Alexandre NM, Amick B 3rd: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the work role functioning questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese. J Occup Rehabil 2007, 17:701-711.
• [47]Abma FI, Amick BC 3rd, Brouwer S, van der Klink JJ, Bultmann U: The cross-cultural adaptation of the work role functioning questionnaire to Dutch. Work 2012, 43:203-210.
• [48]Ramada JM, Serra C, Amick BC 3rd, Castano JR, Delclos GL: Cross-cultural adaptation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire to Spanish spoken in Spain. J Occup Rehabil 2013, 23:566-575.
• [49]Schafer JL, Graham JW: Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Meth 2002, 7:147-177.