Severens J L, Mulder J, Laheij R J, Verbeek A L
Department of Medical Technology Assessment, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Soc Sci Med. 2000 Jul;51(2):243-9. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00452-9.
The impact of disease on the ability of a person to perform work should be part of an economic evaluation when a societal viewpoint is used for the analysis. This impact is reflected by calculating productivity costs. Measurement of these costs is often performed retrospectively. The purpose of our study was to study precision and accuracy of a retrospective self-administered questionnaire on sick leave. Employees of a company were asked to indicate the number of days absent from work due to illness during the past 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 2 months, 6 months, and the past 12 months. The percentage of respondents with an absolute difference of a maximum of respectively 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 or more days between reported, and company-registered absence due to illness was determined. Besides this, the proportional difference was calculated. A systematic difference was tested with a signed rank test. Of the reported data, 95% matched the registered data perfectly when the recall period was limited to 2 and 4 weeks. This percentage decreased to 87%, 57%, and 51% for 2 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The weighted mean proportional differences for the recall periods were respectively 32.9, 35.2, 45.3, 34.9, and 113.6%. No systematic positive or negative difference was found between registered and reported sick leave. The results suggest that the recall period for retrospective measurement of sick leave is limited according to the precision level, which seems to be appropriate for the subject and the purpose of the study. We recommend using a recall period of no more than 2 months.
当从社会视角进行分析时，疾病对个人工作能力的影响应作为经济评估的一部分。这种影响通过计算生产力成本来体现。这些成本的测量通常是回顾性的。我们研究的目的是探讨一份关于病假的回顾性自填问卷的准确性和精确性。一家公司的员工被要求指出在过去2周、4周、2个月、6个月以及过去12个月中因病缺勤的天数。确定了报告的因病缺勤天数与公司记录的因病缺勤天数之间绝对差值最多分别为0、1、2、3、4、5、6、7、8和9天及以上的受访者百分比。除此之外，还计算了比例差异。使用符号秩检验来检验系统差异。当回顾期限制在2周和4周时，报告数据中有95%与记录数据完全匹配。对于2个月、6个月和12个月，这一百分比分别降至87%、57%和51%。各回顾期的加权平均比例差异分别为32.9%、35.2%、45.3%、34.9%和113.6%。在记录的病假和报告的病假之间未发现系统性的正差异或负差异。结果表明，根据精确程度，病假回顾性测量的回顾期是有限的，这似乎适合该研究的主题和目的。我们建议使用不超过2个月的回顾期。
