Identification and prioritisation of items for a draft participant-reported questionnaire to measure use of social care, informal care, aids and adaptations.

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS
PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6
Kirsty M Garfield, Gail A Thornton, Samantha Husbands, Ailsa Cameron, William Hollingworth, Sian M Noble, Paul Roy, Joanna C Thorn
{"title":"Identification and prioritisation of items for a draft participant-reported questionnaire to measure use of social care, informal care, aids and adaptations.","authors":"Kirsty M Garfield, Gail A Thornton, Samantha Husbands, Ailsa Cameron, William Hollingworth, Sian M Noble, Paul Roy, Joanna C Thorn","doi":"10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Resource-use measurement is integral for assessing cost-effectiveness within trial-based economic evaluations. Methods for gathering resource-use data from participants are not well developed, with questionnaires typically produced for each trial and rarely validated. The healthcare module of a generic, modular resource-use measure, designed for collecting self-report resource-utilisation data, has recently been developed in the UK. The objective of this research is to identify and prioritise items for new, bolt-on modules, covering informal care, social care and personal expenses incurred due to health and care needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Identification and prioritisation, conducted between April and December 2021, involved a rapid review of questionnaires included in the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement and economic evaluations published from 2011 to 2021 to identify candidate items, an online survey of UK-based social care professionals to identify omitted social care items and focus groups with UK-based health economists and UK-based people who access social care services either for themselves or as carers to prioritise items.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 203 items. Over half of the 24 survey respondents reported no missing items. Five academic health economists and four people who access social care services participated in focus groups. Feedback shaped the social and informal care modules and indicated that no specific personal expenses were essential to collect in all trials. Aids/adaptations were highlighted as costly personal expenses when relevant; therefore, the personal expenses module was narrowed to aids/adaptations only.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Draft informal care, social care and aids/adaptations modules were developed, ready for further testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":" ","pages":"431-443"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11058127/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Resource-use measurement is integral for assessing cost-effectiveness within trial-based economic evaluations. Methods for gathering resource-use data from participants are not well developed, with questionnaires typically produced for each trial and rarely validated. The healthcare module of a generic, modular resource-use measure, designed for collecting self-report resource-utilisation data, has recently been developed in the UK. The objective of this research is to identify and prioritise items for new, bolt-on modules, covering informal care, social care and personal expenses incurred due to health and care needs.

Methods: Identification and prioritisation, conducted between April and December 2021, involved a rapid review of questionnaires included in the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement and economic evaluations published from 2011 to 2021 to identify candidate items, an online survey of UK-based social care professionals to identify omitted social care items and focus groups with UK-based health economists and UK-based people who access social care services either for themselves or as carers to prioritise items.

Results: The review identified 203 items. Over half of the 24 survey respondents reported no missing items. Five academic health economists and four people who access social care services participated in focus groups. Feedback shaped the social and informal care modules and indicated that no specific personal expenses were essential to collect in all trials. Aids/adaptations were highlighted as costly personal expenses when relevant; therefore, the personal expenses module was narrowed to aids/adaptations only.

Conclusion: Draft informal care, social care and aids/adaptations modules were developed, ready for further testing.

确定与会者报告的调查问卷草案的项目和优先顺序,以衡量社会护理、非正式护理、辅助工具和改装的使用情况。
背景:在以试验为基础的经济评估中,资源使用测量是评估成本效益不可或缺的一部分。从参与者那里收集资源使用数据的方法并不完善,通常是为每项试验制作调查问卷,而且很少经过验证。最近,英国开发了一种通用模块化资源使用测量方法的医疗保健模块,旨在收集自我报告的资源使用数据。本研究的目的是为新的附加模块确定项目并排定优先顺序,涵盖非正式护理、社会护理以及因健康和护理需求而产生的个人支出:方法:在 2021 年 4 月至 12 月期间进行识别和优先排序,包括快速审查资源使用测量工具数据库中的调查问卷以及 2011 年至 2021 年期间发布的经济评估,以识别候选项目;对英国社会护理专业人员进行在线调查,以识别省略的社会护理项目;与英国卫生经济学家和英国自己或作为护理人员获得社会护理服务的人员进行焦点小组讨论,以确定项目的优先顺序:审查确定了 203 个项目。在 24 位调查对象中,超过半数表示没有遗漏项目。五位学术健康经济学家和四位社会护理服务者参加了焦点小组。反馈意见确定了社会和非正式护理模块,并表明在所有试验中,没有特定的个人支出是必须收集的。在相关情况下,辅助/适应被强调为昂贵的个人支出;因此,个人支出模块的范围缩小到仅包括辅助/适应:非正规护理、社会护理和辅助/适应模块草案已编制完成,可供进一步测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信