Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35977755›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2022

Incorporating productivity loss in health economic evaluations: a review of guidelines and practices worldwide for research agenda in China.

Shan Jiang, Yitong Wang, Lei Si, Xiao Zang, Yuan-Yuan Gu, Yawen Jiang, Gordon G Liu, Jing Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Costs of productivity loss up to two years after ischaemic stroke.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Burden of hypertension-related diseases in Eastern Mediterranean region.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The "Stock of Time" Method: A New Approach to Calculate Indirect Costs and Benefits in Economic Evaluations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Shan Jiang *School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1015-1278
Yitong Wang *Public Health Department, Aix- Marseille-University, Marseille, France.
Lei SiThe George Institute for Global Health, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3044-170X
Xiao ZangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Yuan-Yuan GuMacquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School and Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Yawen JiangSchool of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0498-0662
Gordon G LiuNational School of Development, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Jing WuSchool of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China jingwu@tju.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionProductivity loss may contribute to a large proportion of costs of health conditions in an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, but there is currently a lack of methodological consensus on how productivity loss should be measured and valued. Despite the research progress surrounding this issue in other countries, it has been rarely discussed in China.

methodsWe reviewed the official guidelines on economic evaluations in different countries and regions and screened the literature to summarise the extent to which productivity loss was incorporated in economic evaluations and the underlying methodological challenges.

resultsA total of 48 guidelines from 46 countries/regions were included. Although 32 (67%) guidelines recommend excluding productivity loss in the base case analysis, 23 (48%) guidelines recommend including productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses. Through a review of systematic reviews and the economic evaluation studies included in these reviews, we found that the average probability of incorporating productivity loss in an economic evaluation was 10.2%. Among the economic evaluations (n=478) that explicitly considered productivity loss, most (n=455) considered losses from paid work, while only a few studies (n=23) considered unpaid work losses. Recognising the existing methodological challenges and the specific context of China, we proposed a practical research agenda and a disease list for progress on this topic, including the development of the disease list comprehensively consisting of health conditions where the productivity loss should be incorporated into economic evaluations.

conclusionAn increasing number of guidelines recommend the inclusion of productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses of economic evaluation. We optimistically expect that more Chinese researchers notice the importance of incorporating productivity loss in economic evaluations and anticipate guidelines that may be suitable for Chinese practitioners and decision-makers that facilitate the advancement of research on productivity loss measurement and valuation.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEfficiencyChinaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansSystematic Reviews as Topichealth economicsreview

Identifiers

PMID35977755
PMCPMC9389102

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.