Neha Das, Phuong Nguyen, Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Peter Lee, Suzanne Robinson, Lan Gao
{"title":"衡量和评估非正式护理的方法:中风的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Neha Das, Phuong Nguyen, Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Peter Lee, Suzanne Robinson, Lan Gao","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To accurately capture informal care in healthcare evaluations, rigorous approaches are required to measure and value this important care component. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we intended to summarize the current methods of measuring and valuing informal care costs in healthcare evaluations (full and partial healthcare evaluations, including cost of illness and cost analysis) in stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL. We used EndNote 20, Research Screener, and Covidence platforms for screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis was performed on informal care hours, and a subgroup meta-analysis was conducted based on stroke severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. There was variation among the studies in the informal care measurement and valuation approaches. The meta-analysis of studies where data on informal care hours were available showed an estimate of informal care hours of 25.76 per week (95% CI 13.36-38.16) with a high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 99.97%). The overall risk of bias in the studies was assessed as low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standardizing the measurement and valuation of informal care costs is essential for improving the consistency and comparability of economic evaluations. Pilot studies that incorporate standardized informal care cost valuation methods can help identify any practical challenges and capture the impact of informal care more accurately.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods for Measuring and Valuing Informal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Neha Das, Phuong Nguyen, Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Peter Lee, Suzanne Robinson, Lan Gao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To accurately capture informal care in healthcare evaluations, rigorous approaches are required to measure and value this important care component. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we intended to summarize the current methods of measuring and valuing informal care costs in healthcare evaluations (full and partial healthcare evaluations, including cost of illness and cost analysis) in stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL. We used EndNote 20, Research Screener, and Covidence platforms for screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis was performed on informal care hours, and a subgroup meta-analysis was conducted based on stroke severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. There was variation among the studies in the informal care measurement and valuation approaches. The meta-analysis of studies where data on informal care hours were available showed an estimate of informal care hours of 25.76 per week (95% CI 13.36-38.16) with a high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 99.97%). The overall risk of bias in the studies was assessed as low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Standardizing the measurement and valuation of informal care costs is essential for improving the consistency and comparability of economic evaluations. Pilot studies that incorporate standardized informal care cost valuation methods can help identify any practical challenges and capture the impact of informal care more accurately.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.06.007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Methods for Measuring and Valuing Informal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Stroke.
Objectives: To accurately capture informal care in healthcare evaluations, rigorous approaches are required to measure and value this important care component. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we intended to summarize the current methods of measuring and valuing informal care costs in healthcare evaluations (full and partial healthcare evaluations, including cost of illness and cost analysis) in stroke.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL. We used EndNote 20, Research Screener, and Covidence platforms for screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis was performed on informal care hours, and a subgroup meta-analysis was conducted based on stroke severity.
Results: A total of 31 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. There was variation among the studies in the informal care measurement and valuation approaches. The meta-analysis of studies where data on informal care hours were available showed an estimate of informal care hours of 25.76 per week (95% CI 13.36-38.16) with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.97%). The overall risk of bias in the studies was assessed as low.
Conclusions: Standardizing the measurement and valuation of informal care costs is essential for improving the consistency and comparability of economic evaluations. Pilot studies that incorporate standardized informal care cost valuation methods can help identify any practical challenges and capture the impact of informal care more accurately.
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.