Demographic and epidemiological changes place an increasing reliance on informal carers. Some support programmes exist, but funding is often limited. There is a need for economic evaluation of interventions for carers to assist policymakers in prioritizing carer support.
Our aim was to systematically review and critically appraise cost–utility analyses of interventions for informal carers, in order to assess the methods employed and the quality of the reporting.
A systematic review of databases was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and EconLit of items published between 1950 and February 2019. Published studies were selected if they involved a cost–utility analysis of an intervention mainly or jointly targeting informal carers. The reporting quality of economic analyses was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
An initial set of 1364 potentially relevant studies was identified. The titles and the abstracts were then screened, resulting in the identification of 62 full-text articles that warranted further assessment of their eligibility. Of these, 20 economic evaluations of informal carer interventions met the inclusion criteria. The main geographical area was the UK (n = 11). These studies were conducted in mental and/or behavioural (n = 15), cardiovascular (n = 3) or cancer (n = 2) clinical fields. These cost–utility analyses were based on randomized clinical trials (n = 16) and on observational studies (n = 4), of which only one presented a Markov model-based economic evaluation. Four of the six psychological interventions were deemed to be cost effective versus two of the four education/support interventions, and four of the nine training/support interventions. Two articles achieved a CHEERS score of 100% and nine of the economic evaluations achieved a score of 85% in terms of the CHEERS criteria for high-quality economic studies.
Our critical review highlights the lack of cost–utility analyses of interventions to support informal carers. However, it also shows the relative prominence of good reporting practices in these analyses that other studies might be able to build on.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Mello JA, Macq J, Van Durme T, Cès S, Spruytte N, Van Audenhove C, et al. The determinants of informal caregivers’ burden in the care of frail older persons: a dynamic and role-related perspective. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21:838–43.
Paraponaris A, Davin B. Economics of the iceberg: informal care provided to French elderly with dementia. Value Health. 2015;18:368–75.
Goodrich K, Kaambwa B, Al-Janabi H. The inclusion of informal care in applied economic evaluation: A review. Value Health. 2012;15:975–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.009.
Colombo F, Ana L-N, Mercier J, Tjadens F. Help wanted? : providing and paying for long-term care [Internet]. OECD; 2011. https://books.google.fr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EI-GMlqq7TAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&ots=6hvenpZb0-&sig=OeWmd4H1Aowg9igiPogQToOhZdA#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Rahola A. Synthèse du débat national sur la dépendance Axel RAHOLA Rapporteur du Comité interministériel de la dépendance [Internet]; 2011. https://www.caissedesdepots.fr/fileadmin/PDF/06._solutionsdurables_tv/EM00-Synthese_du_debat_national_sur_la_dependance__juin_2011.pdf.
Hoare S, Kelly MP, Barclay S. Home care and end-of-life hospital admissions: a retrospective interview study in English primary and secondary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69:e561–9.
Posnett J, Jan S. Indirect cost in economic evaluation: the opportunity cost of unpaid inputs. Health Econ. 1996;5:13–23.
Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. The valuation of informal care in economic appraisal: a consideration of individual choice and societal costs of time. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:147–60.
Oliva-Moreno J, Trapero-Bertran M, Peña-Longobardo LM, del Pozo-Rubio R. The valuation of informal care in cost-of-illness studies: a systematic review. pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:331–45.
Hoefman RJ, van Exel J, Brouwer WBF. The monetary value of informal care: obtaining pure time valuations using a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:531–40.
Gheorghe M, Hoefman RJ, Versteegh MM, van Exel J. Estimating informal caregiving time from patient EQ-5D data: the informal CARE effect (iCARE) tool. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:93–103.
Landfeldt E, Zethraeus N, Lindgren P. Standardized questionnaire for the measurement, valuation, and estimation of costs of informal care based on the opportunity cost and proxy good method. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17:15–24.
Thomas S, Dalton J, Harden M, Eastwood A, Parker G. Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017;5:1–132.
Selwood A, Johnston K, Katona C, Lyketsos C, Livingston G. Systematic review of the effect of psychological interventions on family caregivers of people with dementia. J Affect Disord. 2007;101:75–89.
Charlesworth GM. Reviewing psychosocial interventions for family carers of people with dementia. Aging Ment Health. 2001;5:104–6.
Robinson L, Iliffe S, Brayne C, Goodman C, Rait G, Manthorpe J, et al. Primary care and dementia: 2. Long-term care at home: psychosocial interventions, information provision, carer support and case management. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;25:657–64.
Cross AJ, Garip G, Sheffield D. The psychosocial impact of caregiving in dementia and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Psychol Health. 2018;33:1321–42.
Stall NM, Kim SJ, Hardacre KA, Shah PS, Straus SE, Bronskill SE, et al. Association of informal caregiver distress with health outcomes of community-dwelling dementia care recipients: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;67:jgs.15690.
Akarsu NE, Prince M, Lawrence V, Das-Munshi J. Depression in carers of people with dementia from a minority ethnic background: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials of psychosocial interventions. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;34:790–806.
Baruch E, Pistrang N, Barker C. Psychological interventions for caregivers of people with bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2018;236:187–98.
Hopwood J, Walker N, McDonagh L, Rait G, Walters K, Iliffe S, et al. Internet-based interventions aimed at supporting family caregivers of people with dementia: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20:e216.
Clarkson P, Davies L, Jasper R, Loynes N, Challis D. A systematic review of the economic evidence for home support interventions in dementia. Value Health. 2017;20:1198–209.
Jones C, Edwards RT, Hounsome B. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions for supporting informal caregivers of people with dementia residing in the community. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:6–18.
Van Den Noortgate N, Verhaeghe S, Annemans L, Putman K, Verdonck C, Vandepitte S. Effectiveness of respite care in supporting informal caregivers of persons with dementia: a systematic review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;31:1277–88.
Vandepitte S, Van Den Noortgate N, Putman K, Verhaeghe S, Faes K, Annemans L. Effectiveness of supporting informal caregivers of people with dementia: a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. J Alzheimer’s Dis. 2016;52:929–65.
Lopez Hartmann M, Wens J, Verhoeven V, Remmen R. The effect of caregiver support interventions for informal caregivers of community-dwelling frail elderly: a systematic review. Int J Integr Care. 2012;12:e133.
Candy B, Jones L, Drake R, Leurent B, King M. Interventions for supporting informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of a disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007617.pub2.
Mcnally S, Ben-shlomoœ Y, Newman S, Ben-Shlomo Y, Newman S, Ben-shlomoœ Y, et al. The effects of respite care on informal carers’ well-being: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:1–14.
Mason A, Weatherly H, Spilsbury K, Arksey H, Golder S, Adamson J, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers. Health Technol. Assess. 2007;11:1–157.
Shaw C, McNamara R, Abrams K, Cannings-John R, Hood K, Longo M, et al. Systematic review of respite care in the frail elderly. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2009;13:1–224, iii.
Bee PE, Barnes P, Luker KA. A systematic review of informal caregivers’ needs in providing home-based end-of-life care to people with cancer. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18:1379–93.
Maayan N, Soares-Weiser K, Lee H. Respite care for people with dementia and their carers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004396.pub3.
Sorensen S, Pinquart M, Duberstein P. How effective are interventions with caregivers? An updated meta-analysis. Gerontologist. 2002;42:356–72.
Rigby H, Gubitz G, Phillips S. A systematic review of caregiver burden following stroke. Int J Stroke. 2009;4:285–92.
Wittenberg E, James LP, Prosser LA. Spillover effects on caregivers’ and family members’ utility: a systematic review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:475–99.
Lin P-J, D’Cruz B, Leech AA, Neumann PJ, Sanon Aigbogun M, Oberdhan D, et al. Family and caregiver spillover effects in cost-utility analyses of alzheimer’s disease interventions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:597–608.
Grosse SD, Pike J, Soelaeman R, Tilford JM. Quantifying family spillover effects in economic evaluations: measurement and valuation of informal care time. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:461–73.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.
McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:733–44.
Griffiths E, Vadlamudi N. Cadth’s $50,000 Cost-effectiveness threshold: fact or fiction? Value Health. 2016;19:A488–9.
Polinder S, Toet H, Panneman M, van Beeck E. Methodological approaches for cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of injury prevention measures. World Heal Organ. 2011.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–50.
Charlesworth G, Shepstone L, Wilson E, Thalanany M, Mugford M, Poland F. Does befriending by trained lay workers improve psychological well-being and quality of life for carers of people with dementia, and at what cost? A randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2008;12:4–7.
Chatterton ML, Chambers S, Occhipinti S, Girgis A, Dunn J, Carter R, et al. Economic evaluation of a psychological intervention for high distress cancer patients and carers: costs and quality-adjusted life years. Psychooncology. 2016;25:857–64.
Knapp M, King D, Romeo R, Schehl B, Barber J, Griffin M, et al. Cost effectiveness of a manual based coping strategy programme in promoting the mental health of family carers of people with dementia (the START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;347:f6342.
Livingston G, Barber J, Rapaport P, Knapp M, Griffin M, Romeo R, et al. START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manual-based coping strategy programme in promoting the mental health of carers of people with dementia. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1–242.
Richards-Jones S, Mihalopoulos C, Heckel L, Gunn KM, Tan M, Livingston PM. An economic evaluation of a telephone outcall intervention for informal carers of cancer patients in Australia: an assessment of costs and quality-adjusted-life-years. Psychooncology. 2019;28:525–32.
Wilson E, Thalanany M, Shepstone L, Charlesworth G, Poland F, Harvey I, et al. Befriending carers of people with dementia: a cost utility analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;24:610–23.
Drummond MF, Mohide EA, Tew M, Streiner DL, Pringle DM, Gilbert JR, et al. Economic evaluation of a support program for caregivers of demented elderly. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1991;7:209–19.
Forster A, Dickerson J, Young J, Patel A, Kalra L, Nixon J, et al. A cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke: the TRACS trial. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1–216.
Forster A, Young J, Chapman K, Nixon J, Patel A, Holloway I, et al. Cluster randomized controlled trial: clinical and cost-effectiveness of a system of longer-term stroke care. Stroke. 2015;46:2212–9.
Martikainen J, Valtonen H, Pirttilä T. Potential cost-effectiveness of a family-based program in mild Alzheimer’s disease patients. Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5:136–42.
Orgeta V, Leung P, Yates L, Kang S, Hoare Z, Henderson C, et al. Individual cognitive stimulation therapy for dementia: a clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015;19:1–108.
Orrell M, Hoe J, Charlesworth G, Russell I, Challis D, Moniz-Cook E, et al. Support at Home: Interventions to Enhance Life in Dementia (SHIELD)—evidence, development and evaluation of complex interventions [Internet]. Support Home Interv. to Enhanc. Life Dement—evidence, Dev. Eval. complex Interv. NIHR Journals Library; 2017. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28211659.
Patel A, Knapp M, Evans A, Perez I, Kalra L. Training care givers of stroke patients: economic evaluation. BMJ. 2004;328:1102.
Sturkenboom IHWM, Hendriks JCM, Graff MJL, Adang EMM, Munneke M, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG, et al. Economic evaluation of occupational therapy in Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Mov Disord. 2015;30:1059–67.
Woods R, Bruce E, Edwards R, 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 (Rockv). 2012;16:v–xv, 1–116.
Woods RT, Orrell M, Bruce E, Edwards RT, Hoare Z, Hounsome B, et al. REMCARE: pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial of reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family carers: effectiveness and economic analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152843.
Dahlrup B, Nordell E, Steen Carlsson K, Elmståhl S. Health economic analysis on a psychosocial intervention for family caregivers of persons with dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2014;37:181–95.
Joling KJ, Bosmans JE, van Marwijk HW, van der Horst HE, Scheltens P, Vroomen JL, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a family meetings intervention to prevent depression and anxiety in family caregivers of patients with dementia: a randomized trial. Trials. 2013;14:305.
Søgaard R, Sørensen J, Waldorff FB, Eckermann A, Buss DV, Phung TKT, et al. Early psychosocial intervention in Alzheimer’s disease: cost utility evaluation alongside the Danish Alzheimer’s Intervention Study (DAISY). BMJ Open. 2014;4:4105.
Vroomen MJ, Bosmans JE, Eekhout I, Joling KJ, van Mierlo LD, Meiland FJM, et al. The cost-effectiveness of two forms of case management compared to a control group for persons with dementia and their informal caregivers from a societal perspective. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0160908.
Neumann PJ, Hermann RC, Kuntz KM, Araki SS, Duff SB, Leon J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1999;52:1138–45.
EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 7, Subgroup 3, Heintz E, Gerber-Grote A, Ghabri S, Hamers FF, Rupel VP, et al. Is there a European view on health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:59–76.
Anderson R. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility? Health Econ. 2010;19:350–64.
Sopina E, Sørensen J, Beyer N, Hasselbalch SG, Waldemar G. Cost-effectiveness of a randomised trial of physical activity in Alzheimer’s disease: a secondary analysis exploring patient and proxy-reported health-related quality of life measures in Denmark. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e015217.
Gitlin LN, Hodgson N, Jutkowitz E, Pizzi L. The cost-effectiveness of a nonpharmacologic intervention for individuals with dementia and family caregivers: the tailored activity program. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;18:510–9.
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. JAMA. 2016;316:1093.
This research was supported by the National Solidarity Fund for Autonomy project “PERRIER-AAP16-Hand7-25” through the call for proposals launched by the IReSP in 2016. H.A. is supported by an NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2015-08-025) to work on “Techniques to include carer quality of life in economic evaluation”. The authors are grateful to Sophie Domingues-Montanari who helped with the final editing of the manuscript. The authors also thank the reviewers, Salah Ghabri and Sandy Tubeuf, for their valuable comments.
National Solidarity Fund for Autonomy project “PERRIER-AAP16-Hand7-25” through the call for proposals launched by the IReSP.
Conflict of interest
The Fondation France Répit supported the travel and the registration of Wilfried Guets to the ISPOR Europe 2018 and ISPOR Europe 2019 conferences, as well as the travel and the accommodation of Wilfried Guets to the University of Birmingham. The Fondation France Répit also supported the travel and the registration of Lionel Perrier for the ISPOR Europe 2019 conference. Hareth Al-Janabi declares that he has no conflicts of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Guets, W., Al-Janabi, H. & Perrier, L. Cost–Utility Analyses of Interventions for Informal Carers: A Systematic and Critical Review. PharmacoEconomics 38, 341–356 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00874-6