Putting a Dollar Value on Informal Care Time Provided to People Living With Dementia: A Discrete Choice Experiment

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
{"title":"Putting a Dollar Value on Informal Care Time Provided to People Living With Dementia: A Discrete Choice Experiment","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.05.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Informal care represents a significant cost driver in dementia but monetizing informal care hours to inform cost-of-illness or economic evaluation studies remains a challenge. This study aimed to use a discrete choice experiment to estimate the value of informal care time provided to people with dementia in Australia accounting for positive and negative impacts of caregiving.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Attributes and levels were derived from a literature review<span>, interviews with carers, and advice received from an advisory group. Attributes included 4 positive and negative caregiving experiences, in addition to “hours of care provided” and the “monetary compensation from the government.” A D-efficient design was constructed with 2 generic alternatives that represented hypothetical informal caregiving situations. The discrete choice experiment survey was administered online to a representative sample of the Australian general population and a group of informal carers of people with dementia. The willingness to accept estimates were calculated for the 2 samples separately using the mixed logit model in the willingness to pay space.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Based on 700 respondents included in the analysis (n = 488 general public, n = 212 informal carers), the mean willingness to accept for an additional hour of informal care, corrected for the positive and negative impacts of informal care, was $21 (95% CI 18-23) for the general public and $20 (95% CI 16-25) for the informal carers sample.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The estimates generated in this study can be used to inform future cost-of-illness studies and economic evaluations, ensuring that informal care time is considered in future policy and funding decisions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301524024082","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Informal care represents a significant cost driver in dementia but monetizing informal care hours to inform cost-of-illness or economic evaluation studies remains a challenge. This study aimed to use a discrete choice experiment to estimate the value of informal care time provided to people with dementia in Australia accounting for positive and negative impacts of caregiving.

Methods

Attributes and levels were derived from a literature review, interviews with carers, and advice received from an advisory group. Attributes included 4 positive and negative caregiving experiences, in addition to “hours of care provided” and the “monetary compensation from the government.” A D-efficient design was constructed with 2 generic alternatives that represented hypothetical informal caregiving situations. The discrete choice experiment survey was administered online to a representative sample of the Australian general population and a group of informal carers of people with dementia. The willingness to accept estimates were calculated for the 2 samples separately using the mixed logit model in the willingness to pay space.

Results

Based on 700 respondents included in the analysis (n = 488 general public, n = 212 informal carers), the mean willingness to accept for an additional hour of informal care, corrected for the positive and negative impacts of informal care, was $21 (95% CI 18-23) for the general public and $20 (95% CI 16-25) for the informal carers sample.

Conclusion

The estimates generated in this study can be used to inform future cost-of-illness studies and economic evaluations, ensuring that informal care time is considered in future policy and funding decisions.

为痴呆症患者提供的非正式护理时间估价:离散选择实验。
目的:非正规护理是痴呆症的一个重要成本驱动因素,但将非正规护理时间货币化,以便为疾病成本或经济评估研究提供信息,仍然是一项挑战。本研究旨在使用离散选择实验(DCE)来估算澳大利亚痴呆症患者的非正式护理时间价值,并考虑到护理的积极和消极影响:方法:根据文献综述、对照护者的访谈以及咨询小组的建议,得出了属性和水平。除了 "提供的护理时间 "和 "政府的货币补偿 "外,属性还包括四种积极和消极的护理经历。我们采用 D-效率设计,设计了两个通用备选方案,代表假设的非正规护理情况。DCE 调查是通过网络进行的,调查对象是澳大利亚具有代表性的普通人群样本和一组痴呆症患者的非正式照护者。使用支付意愿空间混合对数模型分别计算了两个样本的接受意愿(WTA)估计值:根据纳入分析的 700 名受访者(n=488 名普通公众,n=212 名非正式照护者),在对非正式照护的正面和负面影响进行校正后,普通公众对额外一小时非正式照护的平均接受意愿值为 21 美元(95% CI:18-23),非正式照护者样本为 20 美元(95% CI:16-25):本研究得出的估算值可用于未来的疾病成本研究和经济评估,确保在未来的政策和资金决策中考虑到非正规护理时间。
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
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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