CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,421Workplace Health and Well-beingMental Health Treatment and AccessHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cost of Lost Productive Work Time Among US Workers With Depression

Stewart, Walter F.·2003·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.289.23.3135
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Evidence consistently indicates that depression has adversely affected work productivity. Estimates of the cost impact in lost labor time in the US workforce, however, are scarce and dated. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of depression on labor costs (ie, work absence and reduced performance while at work) in the US workforce. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: All employed individuals who participated in the American Productivity Audit (conducted August 1, 2001-July 31, 2002) between May 20 and July 11, 2002, were eligible for the Depressive Disorders Study. Those who responded affirmatively to 2 depression-screening questions (n = 692), as well as a 1:4 stratified random sample of those responding in the negative (n = 435), were recruited for and completed a supplemental interview using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Mood Module for depression, the Somatic Symptom Inventory, and a medical and treatment history for depression. Excess lost productive time (LPT) costs from depression were derived as the difference in LPT among individuals with depression minus the expected LPT in the absence of depression projected to the US workforce. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Estimated LPT and associated labor costs (work absence and reduced performance while at work) due to depression. RESULTS: Workers with depression reported significantly more total health-related LPT than those without depression (mean, 5.6 h/wk vs an expected 1.5 h/wk, respectively). Eighty-one percent of the LPT costs are explained by reduced performance while at work. Major depression accounts for 48% of the LPT among those with depression, again with a majority of the cost explained by reduced performance while at work. Self-reported use of antidepressants in the previous 12 months among those with depression was low (<33%) and the mean reported treatment effectiveness was only moderate. Extrapolation of these survey results and self-reported annual incomes to the population of US workers suggests that US workers with depression employed in the previous week cost employers an estimated 44 billion dollars per year in LPT, an excess of 31 billion dollars per year compared with peers without depression. This estimate does not include labor costs associated with short- and long-term disability. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of the LPT costs that employers face from employee depression is invisible and explained by reduced performance while at work. Use of treatments for depression appears to be relatively low. The combined LPT burden among those with depression and the low level of treatment suggests that there may be cost-effective opportunities for improving depression-related outcomes in the US workforce.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.289.23.3135

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Stewart, W. F.
Corresponding author
Stewart, Walter F.
ORCID
Stewart, Walter F.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2003-06-18
Volume
289
Issue
23
Pages
3135
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.289.23.3135
OpenAlex
W2105346851
Cited by
1,421
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 113 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 78 · 2013: 81 · 2012: 61
FWCI
109.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
depression, labor productivity, labor costs, absenteeism, employer costs, antidepressant use, treatment effectiveness, economic burden of depression, somatic symptoms, disability costs, mental health workforce planning, health care financing, health care delivery, health care utilization, health care costs
MeSH terms
Adult, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Efficiency, Employment, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Population Surveillance, United States, Linear Models, Cost of Illness, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review