Cited by 209Respiratory viral infections researchWorkplace Health and Well-beingHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Productivity losses related to the common cold

Bramley, Thomas J., Lerner, Debra, Sarnes, Matthew·2002·Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Abstract

Health-related productivity assessments typically focus on chronic conditions; however, acute conditions, particularly colds, have the potential to cause substantial health-related productivity losses because of their high prevalence in working-age groups. This article presents the findings of a study conducted to estimate productivity loss due to cold by using a telephone-administered survey that measured three sources of loss: absenteeism, on-the-job productivity, and caregiver absenteeism. Each cold experienced by a working adult caused an average of 8.7 lost work hours (2.8 absenteeism hours; 5.9 hours of on-the-job loss), and 1.2 work hours were lost because of attending to children under the age of 13 who were suffering from colds. We conclude that the economic cost of lost productivity due to the common cold approaches $25 billion, of which $16.6 billion is attributed to on-the-job productivity loss, $8 billion is attributed to absenteeism, and $230 million is attributed to caregiver absenteeism.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00043764-200209000-00004

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The economic impact of the common cold alone on workplace absenteeism is estimated to be billions of dollars.

    “The economic impact of the common cold alone on workplace absenteeism is estimated to be billions of dollars (Bramley 2002).”

    From Saline nasal irrigation for acute upper respiratory tract infections (2015) · cites this paper as Bramley 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bramley, T. J., Lerner, D., & Sarnes, M.
Affiliations
Tufts Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Bramley, Thomas J.
Venue
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Published
2002-09
Volume
44
Issue
9
Pages
822-829
ISSN
1076-2752 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997248527
Cited by
209
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
common cold, productivity loss, absenteeism, economic cost of illness, comorbidities, working-age adults
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Adult, Child, Common Cold, Efficiency, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, United States, Multivariate Analysis, Linear Models, Cost of Illness, Family Leave

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