Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 39–41 | Cite as

Too important to ignore

Informal caregivers and other significant others
  • Werner B. F. BrouwerEmail author
Commentary

Some 10 years ago now, the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine published their influential guidelines for economic evaluations.[1] The book in which these guidelines are laid down starts with an impressive account of the welfare economic roots of economic evaluation. Based on these roots, it is argued that economic evaluations should normally take a societal perspective. This implies that all costs and effects should be included in an analysis, regardless of who experiences them. In line with this perspective, the US Panel makes an important statement when it encourages analysts “to think broadly about the people affected by the intervention and begin to include health-related quality-of-life effects of significant others in sensitivity analyses when they are important.”[1] The Panel thus indicates that healthcare interventions may affect others besides patients and that these ‘significant others’ should therefore be considered in an analysis whenever relevant and...

Keywords

Economic Evaluation Informal Care Societal Perspective Family Effect Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation 
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

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996: 67Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/PEguide lines/index.asp [Accessed 2005 Nov 25]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Boer A, editor. View on informal care. The Hague: Social and Cultural Planning Bureau, 2005Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Houtven CH, Norton EC. Informal care and health care use of older adults. J Health Econ 2004; 23 (6): 1159–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, van den Berg B, et al. Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring. Health Policy 2005; 74 (1): 85–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Exel NJA, Koopmanschap MA, van den Berg B, et al. Burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients: identification of caregivers ‘at risk’. Cerebrovasc Dis 2005; 19: 11–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nijboer C, Triemstra M, Tempelaar R, et al. Determinants of caregiving experiences and mental health of partners of cancer patients. Cancer 1999; 86 (4): 577–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lucke KT, Coccia H, Goode JS, et al. Quality of life in spinal cord injured individuals and their carers during the initial 6 months following rehabilitation. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 97110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the caregiver health effects study. JAMA 1999; 282 (23): 2215–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dixon S, Walker M, Salek S. Incorporating carer effects into economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 43–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, van de Berg B, et al. The burden of caregiving: evidence on objective burden, subjective burden and quality of life impacts in informal caregivers for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2004; 51 (4): 5707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van den Berg B, Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. Economic evaluation of informal care: an overview of methods and applications. Eur J Health Econ 2004; 5 (1): 36–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, Koopmanschap MA, et al. 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: 147–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamazaki S, Sokejima S, Mizoue T, et al. Health-related quality of life of mothers of children with leukemia in Japan. Qual Life Res 2005; 14 (4): 1079–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and Management & Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations