IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i1d10.1007_s40271-021-00527-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validated Tools to Measure Costs for Patients: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas G. Poder

    (Département de Gestion, Évaluation et Politique de Santé, École de santé publique de l’Université de Montréal
    Centre de recherche de l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal)

  • Lucien P. Coulibaly

    (Université de Sherbrooke
    Centre de Recherche sur le Vieillissement)

  • Myriam Gaudreault

    (Université Laval)

  • Simon Berthelot

    (Université Laval
    Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Axe Santé des populations et Pratiques optimales en santé)

  • Maude Laberge

    (Université Laval
    Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Axe Santé des populations et Pratiques optimales en santé
    Vitam, Centre de recherche en santé durable de l’Université Laval)

Abstract

Background Increasing healthcare expenditures is a major concern to insurers and governments, but also to patients who must pay a greater proportion of their healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to identify validated tools for measuring the costs of a health condition for patients as well as the different elements to be considered when measuring costs from the patient’s perspective. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted from 1984 to December 2020. The search strategy was applied to seven different databases that had been identified prior as pertinent sources. Two authors independently extracted and compiled data. In case of disagreement, arbitration by two other researchers was conducted. The methodological quality of the included articles was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results Among the 679 retrieved articles, nine met the inclusion criteria. The types of costs evaluated in these studies included direct costs for patients as well as for caregivers, indirect costs, and intangible costs. The development and validation processes used in these articles included a literature search, a discussion with the involved stakeholders, the development of an initial questionnaire, the testing of the questionnaire on a sample of patients, and a critical review. Regarding the psychometric properties of the tool, only five studies tested the reliability and validity of the instrument. Conclusions There are very few validated tools available to measure the different health-related costs from a patient perspective. Further research is needed to develop and validate a versatile and generalizable tool using a rigorous methodological process.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas G. Poder & Lucien P. Coulibaly & Myriam Gaudreault & Simon Berthelot & Maude Laberge, 2022. "Validated Tools to Measure Costs for Patients: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 3-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00527-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00527-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00527-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00527-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Drummond & Adrian Towse, 2012. "Is it time to reconsider the role of patient co-payments for pharmaceuticals in Europe?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(1), pages 1-5, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gourzoulidis, George & Kourlaba, Georgia & Stafylas, Panagiotis & Giamouzis, Gregory & Parissis, John & Maniadakis, Nikolaos, 2017. "Association between copayment, medication adherence and outcomes in the management of patients with diabetes and heart failure," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(4), pages 363-377.
    2. Vogler, Sabine & Zimmermann, Nina & de Joncheere, Kees, 2016. "Policy interventions related to medicines: Survey of measures taken in European countries during 2010–2015," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1363-1377.
    3. Raúl Del Pozo-Rubio & Isabel Pardo-García & Francisco Escribano-Sotos, 2020. "Financial Catastrophism Inherent with Out-of-Pocket Payments in Long Term Care for Households: A Latent Impoverishment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Jessica Fraeyman & Moira Verbelen & Niel Hens & Guido Hal & Hans Loof & Philippe Beutels, 2013. "Evolutions in Both Co-Payment and Generic Market Share for Common Medication in the Belgian Reference Pricing System," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 543-552, October.
    5. Kyle, Margaret K., 2022. "Incentives for pharmaceutical innovation: What’s working, what’s lacking," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. Veronika Kočiš Krůtilová, 2021. "The out‐of‐pocket medication burden: Which health problems impact the Czech population aged 50+?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 2129-2144, November.
    7. Livio Garattini & Katelijne Vooren, 2013. "Could co-payments on drugs help to make EU health care systems less open to political influence?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(5), pages 709-713, October.
    8. García-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzis, Nikolaos & Jaber-López, Tarek & Staffiero, Gianandrea, 2016. "An experimental study on the effect of co-payment in public services," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 109-116.
    9. Timo R. Lambregts & René C. J. A. Vliet, 2018. "The impact of copayments on mental healthcare utilization: a natural experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 775-784, July.
    10. Aaltonen, Katri & Vaalavuo, Maria, 2024. "Financial burden of medicines in five Northern European countries: A decommodification perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 347(C).
    11. Peter Neumann & Cayla Saret, 2014. "Is the US “leading from behind” on health policy?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(2), pages 113-116, March.
    12. Fabrice Smieliauskas & Chun-Ru Chien & Chan Shen & Daniel Geynisman & Ya-Chen Shih, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Targeted Oral Anti-Cancer Drugs: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 651-680, July.
    13. Rättö, Hanna & Kurko, Terhi & Martikainen, Jaana E. & Aaltonen, Katri, 2021. "The impact of a co-payment increase on the consumption of type 2 antidiabetics – A nationwide interrupted time series analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1166-1172.
    14. Danyliv, Andriy & Groot, Wim & Gryga, Irena & Pavlova, Milena, 2014. "Willingness and ability to pay for physician services in six Central and Eastern European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 72-82.
    15. Gretta Mohan & Anne Nolan, 2020. "The impact of prescription drug co-payments for publicly insured families," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 261-274, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00527-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.