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




Quality appraisal of generic self-reported instruments measuring health-related productivity changes: a systematic review - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

BMC Public Health

, 14:115

Environmental health

Abstract

BackgroundHealth 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.

MethodsPubMed, 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.

ResultsThis 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.

ConclusionsDecisions 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.

KeywordsAbsenteeism Presenteeism Disability Productivity Self-report Psychometrics Validation AbbreviationsAMA-guideAmerican Medical Association-Guides

COSMINConsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments

EWPSEndicott Work Productivity Scale

HLQHealth and Labor Questionnaire

HRPQ-DHealth-Related Productivity Questionnaire Diary

HWQHealth and Work Questionnaire

SPSStanford Presenteeism Scale

PRODISQPROductivity and Disease Questionnaire

QandQQuality and Quantity questionnaire

VOLPValuation of Lost Productivity questionnaire

WBA-PWell-Being Assessment for Productivity

WHIWork and Health Interview

WHO HPQWorld Health Organization Health and work Performance Questionnaire

WLQWork Limitations Questionnaire

WPAIWork Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument

WPSIWork Productivity Short Inventory.

Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article doi:10.1186-1471-2458-14-115 contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cindy YG Noben, Silvia MAA Evers, Frans J Nijhuis and Angelique E de Rijk contributed equally to this work.

Download fulltext PDF



Author: Cindy YG Noben - Silvia MAA Evers - Frans J Nijhuis - Angelique E de Rijk

Source: https://link.springer.com/



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents