Measuring, Analyzing, and Presenting Work Productivity Loss in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review

Factors affecting presenteeism in workers with nocturnal hemodialysis: A two-center cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Presenteeism and work dysfunction in dialysis patients should be assessed to improve disease management and work productivity. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence and factors surrounding presenteeism and work dysfunction in workers with nocturnal hemodialysis.

METHODS

This multicenter cross-sectional study included 42 workers with nocturnal hemodialysis. Presenteeism was measured in patients using the Work Functioning Impairment Scale (WFun), employment status, exercise habit, and exercise self-efficacy (SE).

RESULTS

The WFun score was 12.5 ± 6.3 points, and patients with mild presenteeism were 12 (28.6%), moderate was 2 (4.8%), and severe was 1 (2.4%). Multiple regression analysis, which was adjusted for few confounding factors, showed that WFun had a significant relationship with lower exercise SE (r = -0.32) and normalized protein catabolism rate (r = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Working patients with nocturnal hemodialysis had presenteeism and a significant correlation with exercise SE and nPCR. This study provides a framework to prevent work dysfunction in nocturnal hemodialysis patients.

How to present work productivity loss results from clinical trials for patients and caregivers? A mixed methods approach

OBJECTIVES

From the perspectives of patients and caregivers, the objectives were: identifying which result presentations, describing work productivity loss (WPL) outcomes, are most understandable; measuring which presentations are important to report; and investigating which WPL outcomes are viewed as important alongside clinical trials results.

METHODS

We used a four phased, sequential mixed methods design, guided by patient-oriented research engaging one patient partner. We conducted think-aloud interviews, in British Columbia/Canada, to review WPL results and our survey measuring the understandability and importance of the results, and importance of each WPL outcome. We surveyed a sample representing working Canadians. The findings were summarized and analyzed using linear and logistic regression. We conducted sub-group analyses; one was gender based. All regressions were conducted using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

In our qualitative phases, 20 patients and caregivers were interviewed. Participants recommended for the results to be brief, simple, and represented visually. Then, 118 patients and 120 caregivers were surveyed. The results presented in days or cost yielded the highest understandability and importance to report. All WPL outcomes were identified as important to somewhat important to report by most. The associations indicated that the more understandable the result presentation was, the more likely it was to be rated as important. Age was the only factor significantly associated with selecting days or cost as the most important result.

CONCLUSION

Presenting WPL results in days and cost, using lay terms and visual supports, were viewed as easiest to understand and most important to report in clinical trials by patients and caregivers. Our findings are supportive of clinical trials standardizing the measurement of WPL to include all of its outcomes (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes and total work productivity loss), in addition to tools assessing the comprehensiveness of WPL results to be provided to patients and caregivers.