| Title |
Challenges in measuring and valuing productivity costs, and their relevance in mood disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, November 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s44866 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benedikte R Lensberg, Michael F Drummond, Natalya Danchenko, Nicolas Despiégel, Clément François |
| Abstract |
Lost productivity is often excluded from economic evaluations, which may lead to an underestimation of the societal benefits of treatment. However, there are multiple challenges in reliably estimating and reporting productivity losses. This article explores the main challenges, ie, selecting an appropriate valuation method (ie, human capital, friction cost, or multiplier), avoiding double counting, and accounting for equity. It also discusses the use of presenteeism instruments and their application in clinical trials, with a specific focus on their relevance in individuals with mood disorders. Further research and discussion is required on the development of reliable techniques for measuring and valuing productivity changes due to presenteeism. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 22% |
| Researcher | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 24 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 25% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 18 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 30 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,824,706
of 25,540,105 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#102
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,055
of 227,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,540,105 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.