Advertisement

Close-Person Spill-Overs in End-of-Life Care: Using Hierarchical Mapping to Identify Whose Outcomes to Include in Economic Evaluations

  • Alastair CanawayEmail author
  • Hareth Al-Janabi
  • Philip Kinghorn
  • Cara Bailey
  • Joanna Coast
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Guidelines for economic evaluations often request that costs and outcomes beyond the patient are captured; this can include carers and also other affected parties. End-of-life care is one context where impacts of care spill over onto those other than patients, but there is little evidence about who should be included within economic evaluations.

Objective

The purpose of this article was to examine (1) how many people are close to those at the end of life (2); their characteristics; and (3) what influences the network size at the end of life.

Methods

In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 participants who were either recently bereaved or had somebody close to them currently receiving end-of-life care. Interviews were used in conjunction with hierarchical mapping to explore the network size and composition and influences upon these networks. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the hierarchical maps and this information was combined with a constant comparative analysis of the qualitative data.

Results

On average, close-person networks at the end of life contained eight individuals, three of whom were rated as being ‘closest’. These were typically family members, although in a small number of cases non-family members were included amongst the closest individuals. There was variation in terms of network composition. Qualitative analyses revealed two key influences on network size: death trajectory (those with cognitive problems/diseases towards the end of life had smaller networks) and family size (larger families had larger networks).

Conclusions

The findings of this article have important implications for researchers wishing to include those affected by end-of-life care in an economic evaluation. Focussing on the three closest individuals would be a key starting point for economists seeking to capture spill-overs, whilst a truly societal perspective would require looking beyond proximal family members. This article further discusses the implications of including close persons in economic evaluations for decision makers.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This work was supported by the European Research Council (Grant No. 261098 EconEndLife).

Conflict of Interest

Alastair Canaway, Hareth Al-Janabi, Philip Kinghorn, Cara Bailey and Joanna Coast have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Data Availability

The individual-level data generated during and/or analysed during this study are not publicly available owing to a lack of consent for use in this manner. Aggregated data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author Contributions

AC was responsible for conducting the research and for the drafting of the manuscript. All authors were involved in the development and design of the study. All authors contributed to the analysis of the data. All authors reviewed, commented and edited drafts of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    NICE. NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:725–7.  https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Healthcare Institute. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. Zorginstituut Nederland 2016.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093–103.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brouwer W, van Exel N, van Gorp B, Redekop W. The CarerQol instrument: a new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1005–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-5994-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brouwer WBF. Too important to ignore. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:39–41.  https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624010-00003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canaway A, Al-Janabi H, Kinghorn P, Bailey C, Coast J. Development of a measure (ICECAP-close person measure) through qualitative methods to capture the benefits of end-of-life care to those close to the dying for use in economic evaluation. Palliat Med. 2017;31(1):53–62.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216316650616.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coast J. Strategies for the economic evaluation of end-of-life care: making a case for the capability approach. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:473–82.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.914436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coast J, Bailey C, Canaway AG. Measuring and valuing outcomes for care at the end of life: the capability approach. In: Round J, editor. Care at the end of life. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. pp. 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoefman R, van Exel J, Brouwer W. Measuring the impact of caregiving on informal carers: a construct validation study of the CarerQol instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:173.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Janabi H, van Exel J, Brouwer W, Coast J. A framework for including family health spillovers in economic evaluation. Med Decis Making. 2016;36:176–86.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15605094.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:458–68.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10381280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coast J. Strategies for the economic evaluation of end-of-life care: making a case for the capability approach. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:473–82.  https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.914436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haycox A. Optimizing decision making and resource allocation in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;38:45–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cameron J, Parkes CM. Terminal care: evaluation of effects on surviving family of care before and after bereavement. Postgrad Med J. 1983;59:73–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ransford HE, Smith ML. Grief resolution among the bereaved in hospice and hospital wards. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:295–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulz R, Mendelsohn AB, Haley WE, Mahoney D, Allen RS, Zhang S, et al. End-of-life care and the effects of bereavement on family caregivers of persons with dementia. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1936–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Christakis NA, Iwashyna TJ. The health impact of health care on families: a matched cohort study of hospice use by decedents and mortality outcomes in surviving, widowed spouses. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:465–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stroebe M, Schut H, Stroebe W. Health outcomes of bereavement. Lancet. 2007;370:1960–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78:1360–80.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2776392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marsden PV, Campbell KE. Reflections on conceptualizing and measuring tie strength. Soc Forces. 2012;91:17–23.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sos112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petróczi A, Nepusz T, Bazsó F. Measuring tie-strength in virtual social networks. Connection. 2007;27(2):39–52.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Starzyk KB, Holden RR, Fabrigar LR, Macdonald TK. The personal acquaintance measure: a tool for appraising one’s acquaintance with any person. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90:833–47.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.833.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aron A, Mashek D, Aron E, editors. Handbook of closeness and intimacy. London: Psychology Press; 2004. pp. 27–30.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antonucci TC. Hierarchical mapping technique. Gen J Am Soc. 1986;10:10–2.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moreno J. Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Beacon House, Beacon, New York; 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cornwell B, Schumm LP, Laumann EO, Graber J. Social networks in the NSHAP study: rationale, measurement, and preliminary findings. J Gerontol Ser B. 2009;64B:i47–55.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbp042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Antonucci TC, Akiyama H. Social networks in adult life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model. J Gerontol. 1987;42:519–27.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/42.5.519.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tomini F, Tomini SM, Groot W. Understanding the value of social networks in life satisfaction of elderly people: a comparative study of 16 European countries using SHARE data. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:203.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0362-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    NHS Choices. Hospice care: end of life care guide. NHS choices 2018. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/Planners/end-of-life-care/Pages/hospice-care.aspx. Accessed 16 Jan 2018.
  33. 33.
    Frank O, Snijders T. Estimating the size of hidden populations using snowball sampling. J Off Stat. 1994;10:53–67.  https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ingleton C, Morgan J, Hughes P, Noble B, Evans A, Clark D. Carer satisfaction with end-of-life care in Powys, Wales: a cross-sectional survey. Health Soc Care Community. 2004;12:43–52.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00467.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rempel GR, Neufeld A, Kushner KE. Interactive use of genograms and ecomaps in family caregiving research. J Fam Nurs. 2007;13:403–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840707307917.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCormick KM, Stricklin S, Nowak TM, Rous B. Using eco-mapping to understand family strengths and resources. Young Except Child. 2008;11:17–28.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250607311932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    King N, Bravington A, Brooks J, Hardy B, Melvin J, Wilde D. The Pictor technique: a method for exploring the experience of collaborative working. Qual Health Res. 2013;23:1138–52.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313495326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Antonucci TC, Akiyama H, Takahashi K. Attachment and close relationships across the life span. Attach Hum Dev. 2004;6:353–70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1461673042000303136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Antonucci TC, Akiyama H, Lansford J. Negative effects of close social relations. Fam Relat. 1998;47:379–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hlebec V, Mrzel M, Kogovšek T. Social support network and received support at stressful events. Metodološki Zv. 2009;6:155–71.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Santos JD, Levitt MJ. Intergenerational relations with in-laws in the context of the social convoy: theoretical and practical implications. J Soc Issues. 2007;63:827–43.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00539.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Canaway A, Al-Janabi H, Kinghorn P, Bailey C, Coast J. Incorporating novel qualitative methods within health economics: the use of pictorial tools. In: Coast J, editor. Qualitative Methods for Health Economics. London: Rowman & Littlefield; 2017. pp. 205–16.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. 1965;12:436–45.  https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1965.12.4.03a00070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers, 2nd edn, vol. 1. London: SAGE Publications; 2013.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50–2.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    ONS. Deaths registered in England and Wales: 2017. 2018. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregistrationsummarytables/2017. Accessed 30 Jul 2018.
  47. 47.
    Ray RA, Street AF. Ecomapping: an innovative research tool for nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50:545–52.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03434.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stansfeld S, Marmot M. Deriving a survey measure of social support: the reliability and validity of the close persons questionnaire. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35:1027–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90242-I.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Antonucci TC, Israel B. Veridicality of social support: a comparison of principal and network members’ responses. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986;54:432–7.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.54.4.432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Marsden PV. Network data and measurement. Ann Rev. 1990;16:435–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Age UK. Loneliness: the state we’re in. 2012. Available from: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/brandpartnerglobal/oxfordshirevpp/documents/loneliness the state we are inreport 2013.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2019.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Burstow P. Dying alone: assessing isolation, loneliness and poverty. 2005. Available from: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Society/documents/2006/04/07/Dying_Alone_Isolation_Report2final.doc. Accessed 2 Mar 2019.
  53. 53.
    Hoefman RJ, van Exel J, Brouwer WBF. Measuring care-related quality of life of caregivers for use in economic evaluations: CarerQol tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:469–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0477-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alastair Canaway
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hareth Al-Janabi
    • 2
  • Philip Kinghorn
    • 2
  • Cara Bailey
    • 2
  • Joanna Coast
    • 3
  1. 1.Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Health Economics UnitUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.School of Social and Community MedicineUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations