Skip to main content

Parental health spillover effects of paediatric rare genetic conditions

Abstract

Purpose

The complexity and severity of rare genetic conditions pose substantial burden to families. While the importance of spillovers on carers’ health in resource allocation decisions is increasingly recognised, there is significant lack of empirical evidence in the context of rare diseases. The objective of this study was to estimate the health spillovers of paediatric rare genetic conditions on parents.

Methods

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data from children with rare genetic conditions (genetic kidney diseases, mitochondrial diseases, epileptic encephalopathies, brain malformations) and their parents were collected using the CHU9D and SF-12 measures, respectively. We used two approaches to estimate parental health spillovers. To quantify the ‘absolute health spillover’, we matched our parent cohort to the Australian general population. To quantify the ‘relative health spillover’, regression models were applied using the cohort data.

Results

Parents of affected children had significantly lower HRQoL compared to matched parents in the general public (− 0.06; 95% CIs − 0.08, − 0.04). Multivariable regression demonstrated a positive association between parental and child health. The mean magnitude of HRQoL loss in parents was estimated to be 33% of the HRQoL loss observed in children (95% CIs 21%, 46%).

Conclusion

Paediatric rare genetic conditions appear to be associated with substantial parental health spillovers. This highlights the importance of including health effects on family members and caregivers into economic evaluation of genomic technologies and personalised medicine. Overlooking spillover effects may undervalue the benefits of diagnosis and management in this context. This study also expands the knowledge of family spillover to the rare disease spectrum.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Boycott, K. M., Vanstone, M. R., Bulman, D. E., & MacKenzie, A. E. (2013). Rare-disease genetics in the era of next-generation sequencing: Discovery to translation. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14(10), 681.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Stark, Z., Schofield, D., Martyn, M., Rynehart, L., Shrestha, R., Alam, K., et al. (2019). Does genomic sequencing early in the diagnostic trajectory make a difference? A follow-up study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Genetics in Medicine, 21(1), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0006-8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Slade, A., Isa, F., Kyte, D., Pankhurst, T., Kerecuk, L., Ferguson, J., et al. (2018). Patient reported outcome measures in rare diseases: A narrative review. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 13(1), 61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wright, C. F., FitzPatrick, D. R., & Firth, H. V. (2018). Paediatric genomics: Diagnosing rare disease in children. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(5), 253.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Madeo, A. C., O'Brien, K. E., Bernhardt, B. A., & Biesecker, B. B. (2012). Factors associated with perceived uncertainty among parents of children with undiagnosed medical conditions. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 158A(8), 1877–1884. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.35425.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Zurynski, Y., Deverell, M., Dalkeith, T., Johnson, S., Christodoulou, J., Leonard, H., et al. (2017). Australian children living with rare diseases: Experiences of diagnosis and perceived consequences of diagnostic delays. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 12(1), 68.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pelentsov, L. J., Fielder, A. L., Laws, T. A., & Esterman, A. J. (2016). The supportive care needs of parents with a child with a rare disease: Results of an online survey. BMC Family Practice, 17(1), 88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Pelentsov, L. J., Laws, T. A., & Esterman, A. J. (2015). The supportive care needs of parents caring for a child with a rare disease: A scoping review. Disability and Health Journal, 8(4), 475–491.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wittenberg, E., James, L. P., & Prosser, L. A. (2019). Spillover effects on caregivers’ and family members’ utility: A systematic review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics, 37(4), 475–499.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wittenberg, E., & Prosser, L. A. (2016). Health as a family affair. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(19), 1804–1806.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    National Institue for Health and Care Excellence (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781. Accessed 03 Jan 2019.

  12. 12.

    Sanders, G. D., Neumann, P. J., Basu, A., Brock, D. W., Feeny, D., Krahn, M., et al. (2016). Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA, 316(10), 1093–1103.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Al-Janabi, H., McLoughlin, C., Oyebode, J., Efstathiou, N., & Calvert, M. (2019). Six mechanisms behind carer wellbeing effects: A qualitative study of healthcare delivery. Social Science & Medicine, 2, 112382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Brouwer, W. B. (2019). The inclusion of spillover effects in economic evaluations: Not an optional extra. PharmacoEconomics, 37(4), 451–456.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lavelle, T. A., D’Cruz, B. N., Mohit, B., Ungar, W. J., Prosser, L. A., Tsiplova, K., et al. (2019). Family spillover effects in pediatric cost-utility analyses. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 17(2), 163–174.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Stark, Z., Lunke, S., Brett, G. R., Tan, N. B., Stapleton, R., Kumble, S., et al. (2018). Meeting the challenges of implementing rapid genomic testing in acute pediatric care. Genetics in Medicine, 20(12), 1554–1563. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2018.37.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Howell, K. B., Eggers, S., Dalziel, K., Riseley, J., Mandelstam, S., Myers, C. T., et al. (2018). A population-based cost-effectiveness study of early genetic testing in severe epilepsies of infancy. Epilepsia, 59(6), 1177–1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.14087.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Schwarze, K., Buchanan, J., Taylor, J. C., & Wordsworth, S. (2018). Are whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing approaches cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature. Genetics in Medicine, 20(10), 1122.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Phillips, K. A., Deverka, P. A., Marshall, D. A., Wordsworth, S., Regier, D. A., Christensen, K. D., et al. (2018). Methodological issues in assessing the economic value of next-generation sequencing tests: Many challenges and not enough solutions. Value in Health, 21(9), 1033–1042.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Stark, Z., Boughtwood, T., Phillips, P., Christodoulou, J., Hansen, D. P., Braithwaite, J., et al. (2019). Australian genomics: A federated model for integrating genomics into healthcare. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 105(1), 7–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Taylor, N., Best, S., Martyn, M., Long, J. C., North, K. N., Braithwaite, J., et al. (2019). A transformative translational change programme to introduce genomics into healthcare: A complexity and implementation science study protocol. British Medical Journal Open, 9(3), e024681. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., QualityMetric, I., New England Medical Center, H., et al. (2002). How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey (with a supplement documenting version 1). Lincoln, R.I.; Boston, MA.: QualityMetric Inc. ; Health Assessment Lab.

  23. 23.

    Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 3, 851–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ratcliffe, J., Huynh, E., Chen, G., Stevens, K., Swait, J., Brazier, J., et al. (2016). Valuing the child health utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Social Science & Medicine, 157, 48–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Stevens, K. (2012). Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. PharmacoEconomics, 30(8), 729–747.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Al-Janabi, H., Van Exel, J., Brouwer, W., Trotter, C., Glennie, L., Hannigan, L., et al. (2016). Measuring health spillovers for economic evaluation: A case study in meningitis. Health Economics, 25(12), 1529–1544.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Faria, R., Gomes, M., Epstein, D., & White, I. R. (2014). A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics, 32(12), 1157–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Simons, C. L., Rivero-Arias, O., Yu, L.-M., & Simon, J. (2015). Multiple imputation to deal with missing EQ-5D-3L data: Should we impute individual domains or the actual index? Quality of Life Research, 24(4), 805–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0837-y.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Chen, G., Flynn, T., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Huynh, E., Sawyer, M., et al. (2015). Assessing the health-related quality of life of Australian adolescents: an empirical comparison of the child health utility 9D and EQ-5D-Y instruments. Value in Health, 18(4), 432–438.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kwon, J., Kim, S. W., Ungar, W. J., Tsiplova, K., Madan, J., & Petrou, S. (2018). A systematic review and meta-analysis of childhood health utilities. Medical Decision Making, 38(3), 277–305.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Prosser, L. A., & Wittenberg, E. (2019). Advances in methods and novel applications for measuring family spillover effects of illness. PharmacoEconomics, 37(4), 447–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00794-5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1523–1532.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Tilford, J. M., Grosse, S. D., Robbins, J. M., Pyne, J. M., Cleves, M. A., & Hobbs, C. A. (2005). Health state preference scores of children with spina bifida and their caregivers. Quality of Life Research, 14(4), 1087–1098.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, J., & Brouwer, W. (2013). How to include informal care in economic evaluations. PharmacoEconomics, 31(12), 1105–1119.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Al-Janabi, H., Van Exel, J., Brouwer, W., & Coast, J. (2016). A framework for including family health spillovers in economic evaluation. Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 176–186.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Tubeuf, S., Saloniki, E.-C., & Cottrell, D. (2019). Parental health spillover in cost-effectiveness analysis: Evidence from self-harming adolescents in England. PharmacoEconomics, 37(4), 513–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0722-6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Brown, C. C., Tilford, J. M., Payakachat, N., Williams, D. K., Kuhlthau, K. A., Pyne, J. M., et al. (2019). Measuring health spillover effects in caregivers of children with autism spectrum disorder: A comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D. PharmacoEconomics, 37(4), 609–620.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Nan, L., Pei, W., Alex, Z. F., Jeffery, A. J., & Stephen Joel, C. (2012). Preference-based SF-6D scores derived from the SF-36 and SF-12 have different discriminative power in a population health survey. Medical Care, 50(7), 627. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824d7471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Brouwer, W., Van Exel, N., Van Gorp, B., & Redekop, W. (2006). The CarerQol instrument: A new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Quality of Life Research, 15(6), 1005–1021.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Al-Janabi, H., Coast, J., & Flynn, T. N. (2008). What do people value when they provide unpaid care for an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Social Science & Medicine, 67(1), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T. N., & Coast, J. (2012). Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: The ICECAP-A. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 167–176.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants of KidGen Renal Genetics Flagship, Mitochondrial Diseases Flagship, Epileptic Encephalopathy Flagship, Brain Malformation Flagship and their families. We appreciate the coordination team of Australian Genomics and genetic counsellors for data collection and support. The research conducted at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute was supported by the Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program. This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the author and should not be attributed to either DSS or the Melbourne Institute.

Funding

The study as part of “Australian Genomic Health Alliance: Preparing Australia for Genomic Medicine” project was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Targeted Call for Research grant (GNT1113531). This work was also supported by the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance and grants from the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

YW contributed to the study design, analysed the data, drafted and edited the revised versions of the manuscript. IG contributed to the study concept and design, supervised the study, assisted with data analysis and drafting of the manuscript. HA provided feedback on study design and data analysis and edited the manuscript. AM, CQ, IES, KBH, JC, RJL, PJK, ZS and TB contributed to the design of the clinical “flagship” projects, supervised the coordination and data collection of the flagship projects and provided clinical advice to this study. All authors commented on drafts of the manuscripts and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilias Goranitis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I. Scheffer serves on the editorial boards of Neurology® and Epileptic Disorders; may accrue future revenue on a pending patent regarding Therapeutic compound; has received speaker honoraria from Athena Diagnostics, BioMarin, UCB, GSK, Eisai, and Transgenomics; has received scientific advisory board honoraria from BioMarin, Nutricia and GSK; has received funding for travel from Athena Diagnostics, BioMarin, UCB, and GSK; and receives/has received research support from the NHMRC, ARC, NIH, Health Research Council of New Zealand, March of Dimes, the Weizmann Institute, CURE, US Department of Defense, and the Perpetual Charitable Trustees. K. Howell is supported by an Early Career Fellowship and New Investigator Project Grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. P. Lockhart is supported by the Vincent Chiodo Foundation and receives research support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Orphan Disease Centre, University of Pennsylvania. YW, IG, HA, AM, CQ, JC, RJL, ZS and TB declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethics approvals were granted by the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethic Committee (HREC) (Ref no.: HREC/16/MH/251), the UnitingCare Health HREC (Ref no.: 1717), the Tasmanian Health and Medical HREC (Ref no.: H0016443), and the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research HREC (Ref no.: 2017–2999), as part of the project “Australian Genomic Health Alliance: Preparing Australian for Genomic Medicine”.

Informed consent

Informed consent for participation in the clinical “flagship” projects, research and publication was obtained from the parents of the enrolled children.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 153 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Y., Al-Janabi, H., Mallett, A. et al. Parental health spillover effects of paediatric rare genetic conditions. Qual Life Res 29, 2445–2454 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02497-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Rare disease
  • Quality of life
  • Economic evaluation
  • Informal care
  • Genomic medicine