IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v37y2019i4d10.1007_s40273-019-00785-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dementia Family Caregivers’ Willingness to Pay for an In-home Program to Reduce Behavioral Symptoms and Caregiver Stress

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Jutkowitz

    (Brown University School of Public Health)

  • Danny Scerpella

    (Johns Hopkins University Center for Innovative Care in Aging)

  • Laura T. Pizzi

    (Rutgers University Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy)

  • Katherine Marx

    (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine)

  • Quincy Samus

    (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine)

  • Catherine Verrier Piersol

    (Thomas Jefferson University)

  • Laura N. Gitlin

    (Johns Hopkins University Center for Innovative Care in Aging
    Drexel University)

Abstract

Objectives Our objective was to determine whether family caregivers of people with dementia (PwD) are willing to pay for an in-home intervention that provides strategies to manage behavioral symptoms and caregiver stress and to identify predictors of willingness-to-pay (WTP). Methods During baseline interviews of a randomized trial and before treatment assignment, caregivers were asked how much they were willing to pay per session for an eight-session program over 3 months. We stratified the sample into those who refused to provide a WTP, those willing to pay $US0, and those willing to pay > $US0. We used a two-part model, controlling for demographic characteristics, to predict adjusted mean WTP and to examine associations between WTP, clinical features (cognition, function, behavioral symptoms), and time spent assisting PwD with daily activities. First, we used logistic regression to model the probability a caregiver was willing to pay > $US0. Second, we used a generalized linear model (log link and Gamma distribution) to estimate the amount caregivers were willing to pay conditional on WTP > $US0. Results Of 250 dyads enrolled, 226 (90%) had complete data and were included in our analyses. Of 226 dyads, 26 (11%) refused to provide a WTP value, 72 (32%) were willing to pay $US0, and 128 (57%) were willing to pay > $US0. In the combined model, mean adjusted WTP was $US36.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.72–45.27) per session. Clinical features were not significantly associated with WTP. One additional hour providing PwD assistance was associated with a $US1.64 (95% CI 0.23–3.04) increase in WTP per session. Conclusion As caregivers spend more time assisting with daily activities, they are willing to pay more for a supportive program. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT01892579.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Jutkowitz & Danny Scerpella & Laura T. Pizzi & Katherine Marx & Quincy Samus & Catherine Verrier Piersol & Laura N. Gitlin, 2019. "Dementia Family Caregivers’ Willingness to Pay for an In-home Program to Reduce Behavioral Symptoms and Caregiver Stress," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 563-572, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00785-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00785-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00785-6
    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/s40273-019-00785-6?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. McIntosh, Emma & Clarke, Philip & Frew, Emma & Louviere, Jordan (ed.), 2010. "Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199237128.
    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. Hassan, Alhassan Yosri Ibrahim & Cucculelli, Marco & Lamura, Giovanni, 2023. "Caregivers’ willingness to pay for digital support services: Comparative survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Lisa A. Prosser & Eve Wittenberg, 2019. "Advances in Methods and Novel Applications for Measuring Family Spillover Effects of Illness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 447-450, 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. Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Catherine Louise Lawrence, 2021. "‘What You See is All There is’: The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 653-664, September.
    2. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    3. Emma Frew, 2017. "Aligning Health Economics Methods to Fit with the Changing World of Public Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 287-289, June.
    4. Janina Kotlinska & Helena Zukowska & Zdzislaw A. Błasiak & Pawel Marzec & Marian Zukowski, 2021. "Methodology of Obtaining Information about Societal Needs: The Foundations and their Empirical Verification," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3B), pages 497-514.
    5. Ngouhouo Poufoun, Jonas & Abildtrup, Jens & Sonwa, Dénis Jean & Delacote, Philippe, 2016. "The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 70-86.
    6. Afentoula G. Mavrodi & Vassilis H. Aletras, 2019. "Preliminary Results of a Healthcare Contingent Valuation Study in Greece," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 9(3-4), pages 3-16.
    7. Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Real Economics Needs to Reflect Real Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-136, February.
    8. Din, Anwarud & Li, Yongjin & Khan, Tahir & Zaman, Gul, 2020. "Mathematical analysis of spread and control of the novel corona virus (COVID-19) in China," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    9. Paul Hodgkins & Paul Swinburn & Dory Solomon & Linnette Yen & Sarah Dewilde & Andrew Lloyd, 2012. "Patient Preferences for First-Line Oral Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(1), pages 33-44, March.
    10. Patel, Anita & McDaid, David, 2019. "Methods for assessing costs of gambling related harms and cost-effectiveness of interventions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105220, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Shono, Aiko & Kondo, Masahide & Ohmae, Hiroshi & Okubo, Ichiro, 2014. "Willingness to pay for public health services in rural Central Java, Indonesia: Methodological considerations when using the contingent valuation method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 31-40.
    12. Christopher G. Fawsitt & Jane Bourke & Aileen Murphy & Brendan McElroy & Jennifer E. Lutomski & Rosemary Murphy & Richard A. Greene, 2017. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Two Alternative Models of Maternity Care in Ireland," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 785-794, December.
    13. Lindgren, Petter Y. & Presterud, Ane Ofstad, 2021. "Expanding the Norwegian Armed Forces in the Time of Corona: Benefit-Cost Analysis in the Context of High Unemployment Rate," MPRA Paper 106405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Hassan, Alhassan Yosri Ibrahim & Cucculelli, Marco & Lamura, Giovanni, 2023. "Caregivers’ willingness to pay for digital support services: Comparative survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    15. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond, 2016. "What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Sabina Sanghera & Emma Frew & Janesh Gupta & Joe Kai & Tracy Roberts, 2015. "Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(9), pages 957-965, September.
    17. Somayeh Dodge & Trisalyn A. Nelson, 2023. "A framework for modern time geography: emphasizing diverse constraints on accessibility," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, July.
    18. Marian Shanahan & Alison Ritter, 2014. "Cost Benefit Analysis of Two Policy Options for Cannabis: Status Quo and Legalisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, April.
    19. Hanson, Torbjørn & Lindgren, Petter Y., 2019. "No country for old men? Increasing the retirement age in the Armed Forces," MPRA Paper 95917, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. James Buchanan & Sarah Wordsworth, 2015. "Welfarism Versus Extra-Welfarism: Can the Choice of Economic Evaluation Approach Impact on the Adoption Decisions Recommended by Economic Evaluation Studies?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 571-579, June.

    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:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00785-6. 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.