IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i4d10.1007_s40273-016-0477-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Care-Related Quality of Life of Caregivers for Use in Economic Evaluations: CarerQol Tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US

Author

Listed:
  • Renske J. Hoefman

    (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Job Exel

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Werner B. F. Brouwer

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Background Informal care is often not included in economic evaluations in healthcare, while the impact of caregiving can be relevant for cost-effectiveness recommendations from a societal perspective. The impact of informal care can be measured and valued with the CarerQol instrument, which measures the impact of informal care on seven important burden dimensions (CarerQol-7D) and values this in terms of general quality of life (CarerQol-VAS). The CarerQol can be included at the effect side of multi-criteria analyses of patient interventions or in cost-effectiveness or utility analysis of interventions targeted at caregivers. Objective At present, utility scores based on relative utility weights for the CarerQol-7D are only available for the Netherlands. This study calculates CarerQol-7D tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US. Methods Data were collected among the general population in Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US by an Internet survey. Utility weights were collected with a discrete choice experiment with two unlabeled alternatives described in terms of the seven CarerQol-7D dimensions. An efficient experimental design with priors obtained from the Netherlands was used to create the choice sets. Data was analyzed with a panel mixed multinomial logit model with random parameters. Results In all five countries, the CarerQol-7D dimensions were significantly associated with the utility of informal care situations. Physical health problems were most strongly associated with the utility for informal care situations. The tariff was constructed by adding up the relative utility weights per category of all CarerQol-7D dimensions for each country separately. Conclusion The CarerQol tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US facilitate the inclusion of informal care in economic evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Renske J. Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2017. "Measuring Care-Related Quality of Life of Caregivers for Use in Economic Evaluations: CarerQol Tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 469-478, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0477-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0477-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0477-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/s40273-016-0477-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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    3. Bernard Berg & Werner Brouwer & Marc Koopmanschap, 2004. "Economic valuation of informal care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 36-45, February.
    4. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser & Eugene McSorley, 2015. "Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi‐Attribute Choice Experiments," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 447-467, April.
    5. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    6. Brousselle, Astrid & Lessard, Chantale, 2011. "Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: Promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(6), pages 832-839, March.
    7. Stefan Björk & Anna Norinder, 1999. "The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 117-126, March.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eve Wittenberg & Lyndon P. James & Lisa A. Prosser, 2019. "Spillover Effects on Caregivers’ and Family Members’ Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 475-499, April.
    2. Nishit Dhanji & Werner Brouwer & Cam Donaldson & Eve Wittenberg & Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2021. "Estimating an exchange‐rate between care‐related and health‐related quality of life outcomes for economic evaluation: An application of the wellbeing valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2847-2857, November.
    3. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    4. Clare C. Brown & J. Mick Tilford & Nalin Payakachat & D. Keith Williams & Karen A. Kuhlthau & Jeffrey M. Pyne & Renske J. Hoefman & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Measuring Health Spillover Effects in Caregivers of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 609-620, April.
    5. Renske J. Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "The Monetary Value of Informal Care: Obtaining Pure Time Valuations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 531-540, April.

    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. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & John M. Rose & E. J. van de Wetering & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2014. "A Discrete Choice Experiment to Obtain a Tariff for Valuing Informal Care Situations Measured with the CarerQol Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 84-96, January.
    2. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    3. Claudine de Meijer & Werner Brouwer & Marc Koopmanschap & Bernard van den Berg & Job van Exel, 2010. "The value of informal care–a further investigation of the feasibility of contingent valuation in informal caregivers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(7), pages 755-771, July.
    4. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    6. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    7. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    8. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    9. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    10. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2013-035 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    14. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, 2010. "A Review and Critique of Studies Reporting Utility Values for Schizophrenia-Related Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(12), pages 1109-1121, December.
    15. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    16. Marieke Krol & Jocé Papenburg & Job van Exel, 2015. "Does Including Informal Care in Economic Evaluations Matter? A Systematic Review of Inclusion and Impact of Informal Care in Cost-Effectiveness Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 123-135, February.
    17. Hareth Al-Janabi & Nikki McCaffrey & Julie Ratcliffe, 2013. "Carer Preferences in Economic Evaluation and Healthcare Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(4), pages 235-239, December.
    18. van den Berg, Bernard & Al, Maiwenn & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: The conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1342-1355, September.
    19. Torbjørn Wisløff & Gunhild Hagen & Vida Hamidi & Espen Movik & Marianne Klemp & Jan Olsen, 2014. "Estimating QALY Gains in Applied Studies: A Review of Cost-Utility Analyses Published in 2010," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 367-375, April.
    20. McCarthy, Ian M., 2016. "Eliminating composite bias in treatment effects estimates: Applications to quality of life assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 47-58.
    21. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.

    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:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0477-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.