Cited by 82Economic and Financial Impacts of CancerCancer survivorship and careHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Cancer Treatment on Work Productivity of Patients and Caregivers

Open access
Kamal, Khalid M., Covvey, Jordan R., Dashputre, Ankur, Ghosh, Somraj, Shah, Surbhi, Bhosle, Monali, Zacker, Christopher·2017·Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death with substantial financial costs. While significant data exist on the economic burden of care, less is known about the indirect costs of treatment and, specifically, the effect on work productivity of patients and their caregivers. To examine the full effect of cancer and the potential value of new therapies, all aspects of care, including indirect costs and patient-reported outcomes, should be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature examining the effect of cancer treatment on work productivity in patients and their caregivers. METHODS: Articles, abstracts, and bibliographies were searched in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and conference lists from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy up to January 2016. The PRISMA guidelines were used. Controlled search terminology included individual pharmacologic therapies for cancer and terms related to patient and caregiver work productivity. Citations were included if they evaluated the effect of cancer treatment on work productivity, used and described productivity assessments and instruments, and were written in English. Studies that reported only clinical outcomes or assessed only nonpharmacological treatments were excluded. Identified studies were screened and extracted for study inclusion by 2 independent reviewers, with adjudication by 2 secondary reviewers during the final eligibility phase. RESULTS: Of 978 potential citations, 62 articles or abstracts were included. Forty-six studies (74.2%) evaluated patient-related productivity; 10 studies (16.1%) focused on caregivers, and 6 studies (9.7%) were a combination. Sixteen countries contributed literature, including 26 studies (41.2%) conducted in the United States. The most commonly studied cancer was breast cancer (53.2%). Nearly 22% of the studies were conducted on multiple types of cancer. The significant diversity of study methodologies and measurements rendered a single unifying conclusion difficult. A variety of metrics were used to quantify productivity (hours lost, return to work, change of status, and activity impairment). The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire was the most commonly used standardized tool (n = 9; 14.5%). Factors found to be associated with impairment in productivity included disease- and treatment-related effects, such as disease progression and severity, cognitive and neurological impairments, poor physical and psychological status, receipt of chemotherapy, and time and expenses required to receive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the considerable variety of studies that have assessed work productivity for cancer treatment and the multifaceted reasons affecting patients and caregivers. With increasing emphasis being given to understanding the value that patients assign to various aspects of cancer treatment, more streamlined information on productivity may be important to patients as they play a greater role in selecting treatment goals through shared decision making with their providers. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which provided the concept, general oversight, and research collaboration on the project. Covvey and Kamal received research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. Zacker is employed by, and owns stock in, Novartis Pharmaceuticals. A related poster abstract was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy April 2016 Annual Meeting and published as Kamal KM, Covvey JR, Dashputre A, Ghosh S, Zacker C. A conceptual framework for valuebased oncology treatment: a societal perspective. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(4 Suppl A):S28. A publication-only abstract was presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2016 Annual Meeting and published as Covvey JR, Kamal KM, Dashputre A, Ghosh S, Zacker C. The impact of cancer treatment on work productivity of patients and caregivers: a systematic review of the evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(Suppl):e18249. Study concept and design were contributed by Zacker, Kamal, and Covvey. Dashputre and Ghosh took the lead in data collection, along with Kamal and Covvey, and data interpretation was performed primarily by Shah and Bhosle, along with Ghosh, Dashputre, Covvey, and Kamal. The manuscript was written by Kamal, Covvey, Shah, and Bhosle and revised primarily by Zacker, along with Shah, Bhosle, Kamal, and Covvey.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.2.136

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Research on the economic burden of cancer caregiving remains limited and concentrated in high-income, Western countries.

    “Despite increasing attention, research on the economic burden of cancer caregiving remains limited and concentrated in high-income, Western countries.7”

    From Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Time-Use, Productivity, and Labor Outcomes Among Unpaid Cancer Caregivers (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    The ‘Effect of Cancer Treatments on Caregiver Work Productivity’ section reports that 16 of 62 reviewed studies evaluated caregiver productivity, supporting a limited evidence base for that aspect of caregiving costs. ‘Overall Study Characteristics’ lists countries for the review as a whole, including several outside the West, but does not establish that caregiver-specific economic-burden research was concentrated in high-income Western countries. The review is also limited to treatment-related work productivity rather than the full economic burden of caregiving; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Kamal et al show that employed caregivers reduce working hours and experience other forms of productivity loss.

    “Meanwhile, Kamal et al 7 show that employed caregivers reduce working hours and experience other forms of productivity loss.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(24):1763-70.
  2. Blackmon E, Bell J, Whitney RL, Reed SC, Kim K, Joseph J. Caregiver work modifications: a hidden cost of cancer care. Paper presented at: ASCO 2016 Cancer Survivorship Symposium; January 15-16, 2016; San Francisco, CA. Available at: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/119270?media=vm. Accessed January 4, 2017.
  3. Wilson L, Liang S, Kwon P, et al. PCN48 Longitudinal comparison across treatments, risk and age of work loss costs in prostate cancer patients: 10 year patterns. Value Health. 2008;11(3):A68-A69 [Abstract].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kamal, K. M., Covvey, J. R., Dashputre, A., Ghosh, S., Shah, S., Bhosle, M., & Zacker, C.
Affiliations
  • Duquesne University (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Novartis (United States) (US)
Venue
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
Published
2017-02
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
136-162
ISSN
  • 2376-0540 (ISSN-L)
  • 2376-1032
OpenAlex
W2580485659
Cited by
82
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Duquesne University
  • Mylan
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
cancer therapy, caregivers, indirect costs, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment, breast cancer, chemotherapy, cognitive impairment, return to work, economic burden of cancer, patient-reported outcomes, activity impairment, disease progression, psychological state, physical condition
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Caregivers, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Economics, Pharmaceutical

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