Does Including Informal Care in Economic Evaluations Matter? A Systematic Review of Inclusion and Impact of Informal Care in Cost-Effectiveness Studies
- 773 Downloads
Informal care makes an important contribution to societal welfare. However, it may involve substantial time costs and can have a considerable negative effect on the health and well-being of informal caregivers. These costs and effects of informal caregiving are often excluded in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. The impact of this exclusion on the outcomes of these evaluations is largely unknown.
This study aimed to explore the inclusion of informal care in economic evaluations and the potential impact of the costs and effects of informal caregiving on cost-effectiveness outcomes.
A systematic review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in four distinct disease areas where informal care is potentially important: Alzheimer’s disease, metastatic colorectal cancer, Parkinson’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis. It was recorded how often economic evaluations included informal caregiving. Next, for the studies including informal care, the impact on cost-effectiveness outcomes was determined by removing informal care costs and effects of the cost-effectiveness calculations and recalculating the outcomes. The new cost-effectiveness outcomes were then compared with the original reported outcomes.
The study identified 100 economic evaluations investigating interventions targeted at Alzheimer’s disease (n = 25), metastatic colorectal cancer (n = 24), Parkinson’s disease (n = 8) and rheumatoid arthritis (n = 43). Twenty-three of these evaluations (23 %) included costs and/or effects of informal caregiving: 64 % of the Alzheimer’s disease studies, 0 % of the metastatic colorectal cancer studies, 13 % of Parkinson’s disease studies and 14 % of rheumatoid arthritis studies. When informal care was included, this mostly concerned time costs. Studies rarely included both costs and effects. The effect of including or excluding informal care costs or effects on cost-effectiveness outcomes in most studies was modest, but in some studies the impact was strong.
Most economic evaluations in the area of Alzheimer’s disease include costs and/or effects related to informal caregiving. However, in other disease areas where informal caregiving is common it seems that the majority of economic evaluations ignore informal caregiving. The inclusion of informal care can have a strong impact on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Future economic evaluations should therefore consider the relevance of informal care in the context of their study, and either include these costs and effects or justify why they were excluded.
KeywordsEconomic Evaluation Time Cost Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Informal Care Informal Caregiving
This study is part of a larger project investigating the broader societal benefits of healthcare, which was financially supported by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MSD BV, Novartis and Pfizer. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
MK was primarily responsible for writing the manuscript in close cooperation with JP and JvE. The search strategies conducted in the review were the result of joint effort. MK and JP conducted the actual review process. All authors read, edited and approved the final manuscript. MK is the overall guarantor for the content.
- 1.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
- 20.Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, van de Berg B, Dinant HJ, Koopmanschap MA, van den Bos GA. Burden of caregiving: evidence of objective burden, subjective burden, and quality of life impacts on informal caregivers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51:570–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Hoefman RJ, Van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. iMTA Valuation of Informal Care Questionnaire (iVICQ). Version 1.0 (December 2011). Rotterdam: iBMG/iMTA; 2011. http://www.bmg.eur.nl/english/imta/publications/manuals_questionnaires/#iVICQ. Accessed 12 Apr 2014.
- 26.Meeuwsen E, Melis R, van der Aa G, Goluke-Willemse G, de Leest B, van Raak F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of one year dementia follow-up care by memory clinics or general practitioners: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79797.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Touchon J, Lachaine J, Beauchemin C, Granghaud A, Rive B, Bineau S. The impact of memantine in combination with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on admission of patients with Alzheimer’s disease to nursing homes: cost-effectiveness analysis in France. Eur J Health Econ. Epub 2013 Aug 9.Google Scholar
- 41.Bond M, Rogers G, Peters J, Anderson R, Hoyle M, Miners A, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (review of Technology Appraisal no. 111): a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Woods RT, Bruce E, Edwards RT, Elvish R, Hoare Z, Hounsome B, et al. REMCARE: reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family caregivers—effectiveness and cost-effectiveness pragmatic multicentre randomised trial. Health Technol. Assess. 2012;16:v–xv (1–116).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Banerjee S, Hellier J, Romeo R, Dewey M, Knapp M, Ballard C, et al. Study of the use of antidepressants for depression in dementia: the HTA-SADD trial—a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar