Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Economic evaluations in community aged care: a systematic review

Authors: Norma B. Bulamu, Billingsley Kaambwa, Julie Ratcliffe

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This paper reports the methods and findings from a systematic review of economic evaluations conducted in the community aged care sector between 2000 and 2016.

Methods

Online databases searched were PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and web of science, CINAHL and informit. Studies were included if they 1) were full economic evaluations that compared both the costs and outcomes of two or more interventions 2) in study population of people aged 65 years and over 3) dependent older people living in the community 4) alternatives being compared were care models or service delivery interventions in the community aged care sector (a group of programs that have been established as a support system to allow older people to remain living in their own homes for as long as possible, as an alternative to institutional or residential care) and 5) published in the English language between 2000 and November 2016.

Results

Eleven studies reporting upon economic evaluations of service delivery interventions in community aged care were identified; the majority of which were undertaken in Europe. Critical appraisal of the identified studies highlighted the methodological rigour in these evaluations.

Conclusion

This systematic review highlights the paucity of economic evaluation studies conducted to date in the community aged care sector. The findings highlight the importance of cost utility analysis methodology as it allows for a uniform outcome measure, that facilitates the comparison of different interventions. In addition, multi-attribute utility measures that represent those quality of life domains that are most important to older people should be used and attention must be paid to the inclusion of informal care costs and outcomes as this is a key resource in community aged care service delivery.
Literature
1.
World Health Organisation: Definition of an older or elderly person. In.; 2002.
2.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Population ageing and development: Ten years after Madrid. In: Population Facts. Population Division, United Nations 2012.
3.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. Population ageing and development: ten years after Madrid. In: Population Facts. United Nations; 2012.
4.
Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. United States: Oxford University Press; 2011.
5.
Drummond M, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
6.
Guberman N, Lavoie J-P, Blein L, Olazabal I. Baby boom caregivers: Care in the age of individualization. The Gerontologist. 2012;52(2):210–8.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Richman A. Are Wii ready for the baby boomers? Long-Term Living. 2012;61(4):24–6.
8.
Robison J, Shugrue N, Fortinsky RH, Gruman C. Long-term supports and services planning for the future: implications from a statewide survey of baby boomers and older adults. Gerontologist. 2013.
9.
10.
11.
Damiani G, Farelli V, Anselmi A, Sicuro L, Solipaca A, Burgio A, Iezzi DF, Ricciardi W. Patterns of long term care in 29 European countries: evidence from an exploratory study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11(1):316.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Ottmann G, Allen J, Feldman P. A systematic narrative review of consumer-directed care for older people: implications for model development. Health Soc Care Community. 2013;21(6):563–81.PubMed
13.
Productivity Commission: Trends in aged care services: some implications. In. Edited by Australian Government Productivity Commission, September 2008 edn. Canberra: Australian Government Productivity Commission; 2008.
14.
Da Roit B, Le Bihan B. Similar and yet so different: cash-for-Care in six European Countries’ long-term care policies. Milbank Q. 2010;88(3):286–309.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Gadsby EK. Personal Budgets and Health: A Review of the Evidence. In: Centre for Health Services Studies. Kent: University of Kent; 2013.
16.
Health Foundation. Personal Health Budgets: Research scan. London: The Health Foundation; 2010.
17.
Ratcliffe J, Laver K, Couzner L, Crotty M: Health Economics and Geriatrics: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Geriatrics Edited by Prof Craig Atwood: InTech; 2012.
18.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
19.
Ratcliffe J, Laver K, Couzner L, Cameron ID, Gray L, Crotty M. Not just about costs: the role of health economics in facilitating decision making in aged care. Age Ageing. 2010;39(4):426–9.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D: Economic Evaluation Methods. In: Economic Analysis in Health Care. Wiley.​com; 2007a: 305.
21.
MSAC: Technical guidelines for preparing assessment reports for the medical services advisory committee in., vol. Medical Service Type: Therapeutic (Version 2.0) 2016.
22.
NICE: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. In.; 2013.
23.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PG: preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.CrossRef
25.
26.
Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding Interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–3.PubMed
27.
Bouman A, Van Rossum E, Evers S, Ambergen T, Kempen G, Knipschild P. Effects on health care use and associated cost of a home visiting program for older people with poor health status: a randomized clinical trial in the Netherlands. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008;63(3):291–7.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Brettschneider C, Luck T, Fleischer S, Roling G, Beutner K, Sesselmann Y, Luppa M, Behrens J, Riedel-Heller S, Konig HH. Cost-utility analysis of a preventive home visit program for older adults in Germany. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A511.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Jutkowitz E, Gitlin LN, Pizzi LT, Lee E, Dennis MP. Cost effectiveness of a home-based intervention that helps functionally vulnerable older adults age in place at home. J Aging Res. 2012;2012.
30.
Melis RJF, Adang E, Teerenstra S, Van Eijken MIJ, Wimo A, Van Achterberg T, Van De Lisdonk EH, Olde Rikkert MGM: Cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary intervention model for community-dwelling frail older people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sciences 2008, 63(3):275–282.
31.
32.
van Leeuwen KM, Bosmans JE, Jansen AP, Hoogendijk EO, Muntinga ME, van Hout HP, Nijpels G, van der Horst HE, van Tulder MW. Cost-effectiveness of a chronic care model for frail older adults in primary care: economic evaluation alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015b;63(12):2494–504.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Fairhall N, Sherrington C, Kurrle SE, Lord SR, Lockwood K, Howard K, Hayes A, Monaghan N, Langron C, Aggar C, et al. Economic evaluation of a multifactorial, interdisciplinary intervention versus usual care to reduce frailty in frail older people. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(1):41–8.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Looman WM, Huijsman R, Bouwmans-Frijters CAM, Stolk EA, Fabbricotti IN. Cost-effectiveness of the 'Walcheren integrated care Model' intervention for community-dwelling frail elderly. Fam Pract. 2016;33(2):154–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Makai P, Looman W, Adang E, Melis R, Stolk E, Fabbricotti I. Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter? The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care. 2014a.
36.
Flood C, Mugford M, Stewart S, Harvey I, Poland F, Lloyd-Smith W. Occupational therapy compared with social work assessment for older people. An economic evaluation alongside the CAMELOT randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2005;34(1):47–52.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Sandberg M, Jakobsson U, Midlov P, Kristensson J. Cost-utility analysis of case management for frail older people: effects of a randomised controlled trial. Heal Econ Rev. 2015;5(1):51.
38.
Brettschneider C, Luck T, Fleischer S, Roling G, Beutner K, Luppa M, Behrens J, Riedel-Heller SG, Konig H-H. Cost-utility analysis of a preventive home visit program for older adults in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:141.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
40.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical care. 1992:473–83.
41.
Ware J, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker D, Gandek B. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey (with a supplement documenting version 1). Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric; 2002.
42.
Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26(7):724–35.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Makai P, Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Nieboer AP. Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2014b;102:83–93.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, Stergachis A. The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13(3):277–88.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Harris A, Bulfone L. Getting value for money: The Australian experience. In: Jost TS, editor. Health Care Coverage Determinations: An International Comparative Study. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill International; 2004.
46.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term care: Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. In: Ontario Ministry of Health and long-term care; 2006.
47.
Corbacho B, Pinto-Prades JL. Health economic decision-making: a comparison between UK and Spain. Br Med Bull. 2012;103(1):5–20.PubMedCrossRef
48.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. In: NICE; 2013.
49.
Graybill EM, McMeekin P, Wildman J. Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(7):e102705.
50.
Bowling A. Measuring health related quality of life among older people. Aging Ment Health. 1998;2(1):5–6.CrossRef
51.
Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):1891–901.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Ratcliffe J, Lancsar E, Flint T, Kaambwa B, Walker R, Lewin G, Luszcz M, Cameron ID. Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(2):299–309.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Milte CM, Walker R, Luszcz MA, Lancsar E, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. How important is health status in defining quality of life for older people? An exploratory study of the views of older south Australians. Applied health economics and health policy. 2014;12(1):73–84.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Bulamu NB, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):1–23.CrossRef
55.
Milte R, Crotty M, Miller MD, Whitehead C, Ratcliffe J. Quality of life in older adults following a hip fracture: an empirical comparison of the ICECAP-O and the EQ-5D-3 L instruments. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):173.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
van Leeuwen KM, Bosmans JE, Jansen AP, Hoogendijk EO, van Tulder MW, van der Horst HE, Ostelo RW. Comparing measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O, and ASCOT in frail older adults. Value Health. 2015;18(1):35–43.PubMedCrossRef
57.
van Leeuwen KM, Jansen APD, Muntinga ME, Bosmans JE, Westerman MJ, van Tulder MW, van der Horst HE. Exploration of the content validity and feasibility of the EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O and ASCOT in older adults. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):201.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Donaldson C, Atkinson A, Bond J, Wright K. Should QALYs be programme-specific? J Health Econ. 1988;7(3):239–57.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Donaldson C, Atkinson A, Bond J, Wright K. QALYS and long-term care for elderly people in the UK: scales for assessment of quality of life. Age Ageing. 1988;17(6):379–87.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
61.
Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, Kuntz KM, Meltzer DO, Owens DK, Prosser LA, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Jama. 2016;316(10):1093–103.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Goodrich K, Kaambwa B, Al-Janabi H. The inclusion of informal Care in Applied Economic Evaluation: a review. Value Health. 2012;15(6):975–81.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Koopmanschap MA, van Exel JNA, van den Berg B, Brouwer WBF. An overview of methods and applications to value informal Care in Economic Evaluations of healthcare. PharmacoEconomics. 2008;26(4):269–80.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Hoefman RJ, van Exel J, Brouwer W. How to include informal Care in Economic Evaluations. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(12):1105–19.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Weatherly H, Faria R, Van den Berg B. Valuing Informal Care for Economic Evaluation. In: Culyer AJ, editor. Encyclopedia of health economics. San Diego: Elsevier; 2014. p. 459–67.CrossRef
66.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Basic Types of Economic evaluation. In: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs; 2005b. p. 7–26.
67.
68.
Metadata
Title
Economic evaluations in community aged care: a systematic review
Authors
Norma B. Bulamu
Billingsley Kaambwa
Julie Ratcliffe
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3785-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

National health data linkage and the agreement between self-reports and medical records for middle-aged and older adults in Taiwan

Research article

High rate of inappropriate blood transfusions in the management of children with severe anemia in Ugandan hospitals

Research article

Pilot to policy: statewide dissemination and implementation of evidence-based treatment for traumatized youth

Research article

She knows that she will not come back: tracing patients and new thresholds of collective surveillance in PMTCT Option B+

Research article

The impact of health literacy on shared decision making before elective surgery: a propensity matched case control analysis

Research article

The struggle against perceived negligence. A qualitative study of patients’ experiences of adverse events in Norwegian hospitals