IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i6d10.1007_s40273-020-00899-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of Population Tariffs for the CarerQol Instrument for Hungary, Poland and Slovenia: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study to Measure the Burden of Informal Caregiving

Author

Listed:
  • Petra Baji

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Miklós Farkas

    (University of Bristol)

  • Dominik Golicki

    (Medical University of Warsaw)

  • Valentina Prevolnik Rupel

    (Institute for Economic Research)

  • Renske Hoefman

    (The Netherlands Institute for Social Research)

  • Werner B. F. Brouwer

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Job Exel

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Zsombor Zrubka

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • László Gulácsi

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Márta Péntek

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

Background The CarerQol instrument can be used in economic evaluations to measure the care-related quality of life of informal caregivers. Tariff sets are available for Australia, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA. Objective Our objective was to develop tariff sets for the CarerQol instrument for Hungary, Poland and Slovenia and to compare these with the existing value sets. Methods Discrete-choice experiments were carried out in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. Data were collected through an online survey between November 2018 and January 2019, using representative samples of 1000 respondents per country. Tariffs were calculated from coefficient estimates from panel mixed multinomial logit models with random parameters. Results All seven CarerQol domains contributed significantly to the utility associated with different caregiving situations. Attributes valued highest were ‘physical health’ (tariffs for no problems were 15.6–21.8), ‘mental health’ (18.1–18.9) and ‘fulfilment’ (16.3–22.9). Value sets were comparable across the countries, although in Poland ‘a lot of fulfilment’ was valued higher (22.9) than in Hungary (16.3) and Slovenia (17.1). Compared with existing value sets, in the three Central European countries, ‘fulfilment’ was more important, whereas ‘financial problems’ were less important. Conclusion For the first time in the Central and Eastern European region, country-specific tariffs are now available for the Hungarian, Polish and Slovenian versions of the CarerQol instrument. This facilitates inclusion of the impact of informal care in economic evaluations. Our results can be used to develop and evaluate country-specific health policy strategies to support informal caregivers. The differences found in informal care preferences highlight the limited transferability of CarerQol tariffs across European regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Petra Baji & Miklós Farkas & Dominik Golicki & Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Renske Hoefman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Job Exel & Zsombor Zrubka & László Gulácsi & Márta Péntek, 2020. "Development of Population Tariffs for the CarerQol Instrument for Hungary, Poland and Slovenia: A Discrete Choice Experiment Study to Measure the Burden of Informal Caregiving," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 633-643, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00899-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00899-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00899-2
    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/s40273-020-00899-2?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. 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.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    3. Márta Péntek & Ottó Hajdu & Fanni Rencz & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Valentin Brodszky & Petra Baji & Zsombor Zrubka & Klára Major & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Subjective expectations regarding ageing: a cross-sectional online population survey in Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 17-30, June.
    4. Petra Baji & Dominik Golicki & Valentina Prevolnik-Rupel & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Zsombor Zrubka & László Gulácsi & Márta Péntek, 2019. "The burden of informal caregiving in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia: results from national representative surveys," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 5-16, June.
    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. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Ishrat Hossain, 2007. "The provision of informal care in terminal illness: An analysis of carers? needs using a discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2007/12, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    2. Marenzi, Anna & Rizzi, Dino & Zanette, Michele & Zantomio, Francesca, 2023. "Regional institutional quality and territorial equity in LTC provision," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    3. Annarita Macchioni Giaquinto & Andrew M. Jones & Nigel Rice & Francesca Zantomio, 2022. "Labor supply and informal care responses to health shocks within couples: Evidence from the UK," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2700-2720, December.
    4. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Ishrat Hossain & Deborah J. Street & Stephanie A. Knox, 2014. "Providing Informal Care in Terminal Illness," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 731-745, August.
    5. Bonny Parkinson & Stephen Goodall & Richard Norman, 2013. "Measuring the Loss of Consumer Choice in Mandatory Health Programmes Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 139-150, April.
    6. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    7. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    8. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    9. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    10. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    11. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    12. Tina Birgitte Hansen & Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen & Rikke Søgaard, 2019. "Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 491-501, October.
    13. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    14. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    15. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    16. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    17. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    18. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Mark Morrison & Craig Nalder, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Improved Quality of Electricity Supply Across Business Type and Location," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(2), pages 117-134, April.
    20. Simon P. Anderson & André de Palma, 2012. "Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 1-25, 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:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00899-2. 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.