Routine measurement in low back pain; towards a pragmatic patient-reported productivity cost outcome measurement using the institute for medical technology assessment productivity cost questionnaire.
Adekunle Z Ademiluyi, Antoinette D I van Asselt, Michiel F Reneman
{"title":"Routine measurement in low back pain; towards a pragmatic patient-reported productivity cost outcome measurement using the institute for medical technology assessment productivity cost questionnaire.","authors":"Adekunle Z Ademiluyi, Antoinette D I van Asselt, Michiel F Reneman","doi":"10.1007/s10198-025-01756-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire (iPCQ) has been recommended as a measurement tool for productivity cost, however, its use in routine care is hindered by the length of this questionnaire (18 questions). This study developed and tested a short-form (SF-) iPCQ.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A secondary analysis of the Groningen Spine Cohort's baseline data from patients with low back pain referred for tertiary care was performed. Six SFs were evaluated against the comprehensive iPCQ. Spearman correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, agreement), standard error of measurement (SEM), and Bland-Altman's plot tested the congruence of the SFs with the comprehensive iPCQ.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample consisted of 1220 patients with low back pain. The SF version with the highest correlation (SF-3; 7 items) with the comprehensive iPCQ had r = 0.99, ICC = 0.99, SEM = 295, while the SF with the least number of items (SF-6; 5 items) had r = 0.84, ICC = 0.91, SEM = 2063. The mean productivity cost estimates of SF-3 and SF-6 were €3414 (95% CI: 3036-3791) and €3333 (95% CI: 2970-3696) respectively while that for the comprehensive iPCQ amounted to €3456 (95% CI: 3189-3720).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A SF with seven questions was developed with a high agreement with the comprehensive iPCQ. Initial clinimetric testing was satisfactory. Further assessment is recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-025-01756-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire (iPCQ) has been recommended as a measurement tool for productivity cost, however, its use in routine care is hindered by the length of this questionnaire (18 questions). This study developed and tested a short-form (SF-) iPCQ.
Method: A secondary analysis of the Groningen Spine Cohort's baseline data from patients with low back pain referred for tertiary care was performed. Six SFs were evaluated against the comprehensive iPCQ. Spearman correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, agreement), standard error of measurement (SEM), and Bland-Altman's plot tested the congruence of the SFs with the comprehensive iPCQ.
Results: The sample consisted of 1220 patients with low back pain. The SF version with the highest correlation (SF-3; 7 items) with the comprehensive iPCQ had r = 0.99, ICC = 0.99, SEM = 295, while the SF with the least number of items (SF-6; 5 items) had r = 0.84, ICC = 0.91, SEM = 2063. The mean productivity cost estimates of SF-3 and SF-6 were €3414 (95% CI: 3036-3791) and €3333 (95% CI: 2970-3696) respectively while that for the comprehensive iPCQ amounted to €3456 (95% CI: 3189-3720).
Conclusion: A SF with seven questions was developed with a high agreement with the comprehensive iPCQ. Initial clinimetric testing was satisfactory. Further assessment is recommended.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics:
• Basics of health economic approaches and methods
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Health Care Systems
• Pricing and Reimbursement Systems
• Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
