A Systematic Review of Methods for Estimating Productivity Losses due to Illness or Caregiving in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Ery Setiawan, Sarah A. Cassidy-Seyoum, Kamala Thriemer, Natalie Carvalho and Angela Devine ()
Additional contact information
Ery Setiawan: Charles Darwin University
Sarah A. Cassidy-Seyoum: Charles Darwin University
Kamala Thriemer: Charles Darwin University
Angela Devine: Charles Darwin University

PharmacoEconomics, 2024, vol. 42, issue 8, No 5, 865-877

Abstract: Abstract Background Productivity losses are often included in costing studies and economic evaluations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of disease. Global guidance on estimating productivity losses is sparse, especially for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) where informal and unpaid work remains dominant. This study aims to describe current practices for valuing productivity losses in LMICs. Methods We performed a systematic review of studies published before April 2022 using three databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. We included any costing or economic evaluation study conducted in a LMIC that provided methodological details on how the monetary value for productivity losses was estimated. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. Results A total of 281 articles were included. While most studies did not specify the overall approach used to measure and value productivity losses (58%), the human capital approach was the most frequently used approach to measure productivity losses when this was clearly stated (39%). The most common methods to estimate a monetary value for productivity losses were market wages (51%), self-reported wages (28%) and macroeconomic measures (15%). Conclusion Reporting standards for productivity losses in LMIC settings have room for improvement. While market wages were the most frequently used method to estimate the monetary value of productivity losses, this relies on context-specific data availability. Until a consensus is reached on if, when and how to include productivity losses in costing and economic evaluation studies, future studies could include a sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of different methods for estimating the monetary value of productivity losses.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-024-01402-x Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:42:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-024-01402-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01402-x

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().