ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026
Measuring, valuing, and incorporating patient and caregiver productivity costs in economic evaluations: a scoping review and environmental scan.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring, valuing, and incorporating patient and caregiver productivity costs in economic evaluations: a scoping review and environmental scan.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEconomic evaluations adopting societal perspectives often include productivity costs, yet these remain inconsistently measured and valued. We aimed to identify existing measurement instruments, valuation methods, and guidance for incorporating productivity costs in economic evaluations.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit; 2019-2025) to map methods for measuring and valuing productivity costs, and an environmental scan of grey literature to identify complementary policy and methodological guidance from Health Technology Assessment organizations. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data on study characteristics, instruments, valuation methods, and recommendations. We synthesized findings descriptively and thematically.
resultsWe screened 3,971 records and included 40 studies: 29 on measurement instruments and 11 on valuation methods. Among twenty-five instruments, twenty-three measured productivity loss for patients, two for caregivers; thirteen measured presenteeism only, four captured presenteeism and absenteeism, and eight measured presenteeism, absenteeism, and unpaid work; three were suitable for valuation using the human capital approach (HCA) and friction cost approach (FCA). Studies highlighted limitations, including HCA's tendency to overestimate and FCA's reliance on scarce friction period data. We also identified ten guidance documents: several jurisdictions favored FCA to value paid labor (
conclusionsThere are many productivity cost instruments, but only few are suitable for valuation. Valuation remains contested, and guidance is fragmented: HCA is simple but risks overestimation, whereas FCA better reflects labor markets but requires data on friction periods. Future work should prioritize valuation-ready tools, improved friction period estimation, and harmonized guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.