Advertisement

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 235–239 | Cite as

Carer Preferences in Economic Evaluation and Healthcare Decision Making

  • Hareth Al-JanabiEmail author
  • Nikki McCaffrey
  • Julie Ratcliffe
Leading Article

Abstract

The preferences of informal carers are important to capture for healthcare decision making. This paper discusses how these preferences relate to the economic evaluation of health and care interventions. Three main issues are highlighted. First, there is a need to consider carer impact routinely in economic evaluations. Second, more debate is required around the ethical issues stemming from the inclusion of interdependent preferences in healthcare decision making. Third, there are a number of situations where carer and patient preferences may conflict and practical ways of representing and handling these conflicts would be useful.

Keywords

Economic Evaluation Informal Care Contingent Valuation Discrete Choice Experiment Health Gain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest and received no specific funding in relation to this manuscript. HA acknowledges funding from the UK Medical Research Council for an early career fellowship in the economics of health (G1002334).

Author contributions

HA drafted the manuscript with input from JR and NM. All authors revised the manuscript following peer review. HA is the guarantor for the overall content of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Dahlberg L, Demack S, Bambra C. Age and gender of informal carers: a population-based study in the UK. Health Soc Care Community. 2007;15(5):439–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pickard L. Informal care for older people provided by their adult children: projections of supply and demand to 2041 in England. University of Kent; 2008. Report No.: PSSRU Discussion Paper 2515. http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/dp2515.pdf. Accessed 23 Sep 2013
  3. 3.
    Tooth L, Russell A, Lucke J, Byrne G, Lee C, Wilson A, et al. Impact of cognitive and physical impairment on carer burden and quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:267–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2010. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213823/dh_117794.pdf. Accessed 23 Sep 2013
  5. 5.
    Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. Br Med J. 2004;328:360–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, Sculpher M. Appropriate perspectives for healthcare decisions. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2010. Report No.: CHE Research Paper 54. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/rp54_appropriate_perspectives_for_health_care_decisions.pdf. Accessed 23 Sep 2013
  7. 7.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Bekker-Grob E, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ratcliffe J, Lester L, Couzner L, Crotty M. An assessment of the relationship between informal caring and quality of life in older community-dwelling adults—more positives than negatives? Health Soc Care Community. 2013;21(1):35–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-Janabi H, Coast J, Flynn T. What do people value when they provide unpaid care to an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(1):111–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiseman V. Caring: the neglected health outcome? Or input? Health Policy. 1997;39:43–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Konig M, Wettstein A. Caring for relative with dementia: willingness-to-pay for a reduction in caregiver’s burden. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002;2(6):89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Den Berg B, Brouwer W, Van Exel J, Koopmanschap M. Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving. Health Econ. 2005;14:169–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duff P, Dolphin C. Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia—part 2: results from employing the ENABLE cost-benefit model in practice. Technol Disabil. 2007;19:79–90.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wittenberg E, Prosser L. Disutility of illness for caregivers and families: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013 Jun;31(6):489-500Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schulz R, Beach S. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282(23):2215–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging. 2003;18(2):250–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prosser L, Grosse S, Wittenberg E. Health utility elicitation: is there still a role for direct methods? Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(2):83–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/D45/1E/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2013.pdf. Accessed 23 Sep 2013.
  21. 21.
    Goodrich K, Kaambwa B, Al-Janabi H. The inclusion of informal care in applied economic evaluation: a review. Value Health. 2012;15(6):975–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? Br Med J. 2004;329:1233–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. Estimation of a preference based carer experience scale. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):458–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoefman R, Van Exel J, Rose J, van de Wetering L, Brouwer W. A discrete choice experiment to obtain tariffs for valuing informal care situations measured with the CarerQol instrument. Med Decis Making. Epub 2013 Jun 14.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gage H, Kaye J, Owen C, Trend P, Wade D. Evaluating rehabilitation using cost-consequences analysis: an example in Parkinson’s disease. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:232–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Culyer A. The nature of the commodity ‘health care’ and its efficient allocation. Oxf Econ Pap. 1971;23(2):189–211.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jacobsson F, Carstensen J, Borgquist L. Caring externalities in health economic evaluation: how are they related to severity of illness? Health Policy. 2005;73:172–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prosser L, Ray T, O’Brien M, Kleinman K, Santoli J, Lieu T. Preferences and willingness-to-pay for health states prevented by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatrics. 2004;113:283–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dickie M, Messman M. Parental altruism and the value of avoiding acute illness: are kids worth more than parents? J Environ Econ Manag. 2004;48:1146–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Basu A, Dale W, Elstein A, Meltzer D. A time tradeoff method for eliciting partner’s quality of life due to patient’s health states in prostate cancer. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:355–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bergstrom T. Benefit-cost in a benevolent society. Am Econ Rev. 2006;96(1):339–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Basu A, Meltzer D. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 2005;24:751–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gomes B, Calazani N, Gysels M, Hall S, Higginson I. Heterogeneity and changes in preference for dying at home: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care 2013;12:7.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang S, Liu T, Lai M, McCorkle M. Discrepancy in the preferences of place of death between terminally ill cancer patients and their primary family caregivers in Taiwan. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(7):1560–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Neubauer S, Holle R, Menn P, Grossfeld-Schmitz M, Graesel E. Measurement of informal care time in a study of patients with dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 2008;20:1160–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tennstedt S, McKinlay J, Sullivan L. Informal care for frail elders: the role of secondary caregivers. Gerontologist. 1989;29(5):677–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Usita P, Hall S, Davis J. Role ambiguity in family caregiving. J Appl Gerontol. 2004;23(1):20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karlawish J, Klocinski M, Merz J, Clark C, Asch D. Caregivers’ preferences for the treatment of people with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 2000;55:1008–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. QALYs and carers. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(12):1015–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hareth Al-Janabi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nikki McCaffrey
    • 2
  • Julie Ratcliffe
    • 2
  1. 1.Health Economics Unit, School of Health and Population SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Flinders Health Economics Group, School of MedicineFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations