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
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 12/2011

01-12-2011 | Current Opinion

QALYs and Carers

Authors: Dr Hareth Al-Janabi, Terry N. Flynn, Joanna Coast

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 12/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

When going ‘beyond the patient’, to measure QALYs for unpaid carers, a number of additional methodological considerations and value judgements must be made. While there is no theoretical reason to restrict the measurement of QALYs to patients, decisions have to be made about which carers to consider, what instruments to use and how to aggregate and present QALYs for carers and patients. Current, albeit limited, practice in measuring QALY gains to carers in economic evaluation varies, suggesting that there may be inconsistency in judgements about whether interventions are deemed cost effective.
While conventional health-related quality-of-life tools can, in theory, be used to estimate QALYs, there are both theoretical and empirical concerns over the suitability of their use with carers. Measures that take a broader view of health or well-being may be more appropriate. Incorporating QALYs of carers in economic evaluations may have important distributional consequences and, therefore, greater normative discussion over the appropriateness of incorporating these impacts is required. In the longer term, more flexible forms of cost-per-QALY analysis may be required to take account of the broader impacts on carers and the weight these impacts should receive in decision making.
Footnotes
1
In all three cases, interventions may also affect the QOL of paid carers; however, these impacts would be assumed to be accounted for when costing the intervention (i.e. through requiring paid carers to work longer hours, or paying higher wages to compensate paid carers for unpleasant tasks). Impacts on unpaid carers’ QOL are more complex and do not appear to be closely related to time spent caring.[28]
 
2
This point and the remainder of the discussion in this section equally applies when considering the carer as the prime target and spillover effects on patients.
 
3
If the spillover effects on carers are negative, the implications are reversed.
 
Literature
1.
2.
Weinstein M, Stason W. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (13): 716–21PubMedCrossRef
3.
Brouwer W, Culyer A, van Exel J, et al. Welfarism vs extrawelfarism. J Health Econ 2008; 27: 325–38PubMedCrossRef
4.
Coast J, Flynn T, Sutton E, et al. Investigating Choice Experiments for Preferences of Older People (ICEPOP): evaluative spaces in health economics. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008; 13 Suppl.3: 31–7PubMedCrossRef
5.
Brouwer W. Too important to ignore: informal caregivers and other significant others. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 39–41PubMedCrossRef
6.
Smith K, Wright K. Informal care and economic appraisal: a discussion of possible methodological approaches. Health Econ 1994; 3: 137–48PubMedCrossRef
7.
Davidson T, Levin L-A. Is the societal approach wide enough to include relatives? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010; 8 (1): 25–35PubMedCrossRef
8.
Van Den Berg B, Brouwer W, Koopmanschap M. Economic valuation of informal care: an overview of methods and applications. Eur J Health Econ 2004; 5: 36–45PubMedCrossRef
9.
Koopmanschap M, Van Exel J, Van Den Berg B, et al. An overview of methods and applications to value informal care in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (4): 269–80PubMedCrossRef
10.
Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extrawelfarism? Soc Sci Med 2003; 56: 1121–33PubMedCrossRef
11.
Ryan M, Shackley P. Assessing the benefits of health care: how far should we go? Qual Health Care 1995; 4 (3): 207–13PubMedCrossRef
12.
Jacobsson F, Carstensen J, Borgquist L. Caring externalities in health economic evaluation: how are they related to severity of illness? Health Policy 2005; 73: 172–82PubMedCrossRef
13.
Culyer A. The nature of the commodity ‘health care’ and its efficient allocation. Oxf Econ Pap 1971; 23 (2): 189–211
14.
Labelle R, Hurley J. Implications of basing health-care resource allocations on cost-utility analysis in the presence of externalities. J Health Econ 1992; 11: 259–77PubMedCrossRef
15.
Basu A, Meltzer D. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 2005; 24: 751–73PubMedCrossRef
16.
Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
17.
18.
Busschbach J, Brouwer W, Van der Donk A, et al. An outline for a cost-effectiveness analysis of a drug for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (1 Pt 1): 21–34CrossRef
19.
Stone P, Chapman R, Sandberg E, et al. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses: variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16 (1): 111–24PubMedCrossRef
20.
21.
Gallagher S, Mechanic D. Living with the mentally ill: effects on the health and functioning of other household members. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42 (12): 1691–701PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging 2003; 18 (2): 250–67PubMedCrossRef
24.
Bobinac A, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, et al. Health effects in significant others: separating family and care-giving effects. Med Decis Making 2011; 31 (2): 292–8PubMedCrossRef
25.
Graff M, Adang E, Vernooij-Dassen M, et al. Community occupational therapy for older patients with dementia and their caregivers: cost effectiveness study. BMJ 2008; 336: 134–8PubMedCrossRef
26.
Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28 (4): 299–308PubMedCrossRef
27.
Wade D, Gage H, Owen C, et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for people with Parkinson’s disease: a randomised controlled study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003; 74: 158–62PubMedCrossRef
28.
Scholte op Reimer W, de Haan R, Rijnders P, et al. The burden of caregiving in partners of long-term stroke survivors. Stroke 1998; 29: 1605–11PubMedCrossRef
29.
Dixon S, Walker M, Salek S. Incorporating carer effects into economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 43–53PubMedCrossRef
30.
Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Associations of stressors and uplifts of caregiving with caregiver burden and depressive mood: a meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003; 58 (2): 112–28CrossRef
31.
Bilcke J, Van Damme P, Beutels P. Cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination: exploring caregiver(s) and ‘no medical care’ disease impact in Belgium. Med Decis Making 2009; 29 (1): 33–50PubMedCrossRef
32.
Gooberman-Hill R, Ebrahim S. Informal care at times of change in health and mobility: a qualitative study. Age Ageing 2006; 35 (3): 261–6PubMedCrossRef
33.
Neubauer S, Holle R, Menn P, et al. Measurement of informal care time in a study of patients with dementia. Int Psychogeriatr 2008; 20: 1160–76PubMedCrossRef
34.
Neumann P, Kuntz K, Leon J, et al. Health utilities in Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study of patients and caregivers. Med Care 1999; 37 (1): 27–32PubMedCrossRef
35.
Patel A, Knapp M, Evans A, et al. Training care givers of stroke patients: economic evaluation. BMJ 2004; 328: 1102–7PubMedCrossRef
36.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
37.
Sen A. Personal utilities and public judgements: or what is wrong with welfare economics? Econ J 1979; 89: 537–58CrossRef
38.
Sen A. Commodities and capabilities. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987
39.
Al-Janabi H, Coast J, Flynn T. What do people value when they provide unpaid care to an older person? A metaethnography with interview follow-up. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67 (1): 111–21
40.
Boorse C. Health as a theoretical concept. Philos Sci 1977; 44 (4): 542–73CrossRef
41.
42.
Lawton P, Kleban M, Moss M, et al. Measuring caregiver appraisal. J Gerontol B Psychol Soc Sci 1989; 44 (3): 61–71
43.
Scholte op Reimer W, de Haan R, Pijnenborg J, et al. Assessment of burden in partners of stroke patients with the Sense of Competence Questionnaire. Stroke 1998; 29: 373–9PubMedCrossRef
44.
Deeken J, Taylor K, Mangan P, et al. Care for the caregiver: a review of self-report instruments developed to measure the burden, needs and quality of life of informal caregivers. J Pain Aging 2003; 26 (4): 922–53
45.
Brouwer W, van Exel J, van Gorp B, et al. The CarerQol instrument: a new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 1005–21PubMedCrossRef
46.
Drummond M, Mohide E, Tew M, et al. Economic evaluation of a support program for caregivers of demented elderly. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7 (2): 209–19PubMedCrossRef
47.
Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. Estimation of a preferencebased carer experience scale. Med Decis Making 2011; 31 (3): 458–68PubMedCrossRef
48.
49.
50.
Charlesworth G, Shepstone L, Wilson E, et al. Does befriending by trained lay workers improve psychological well-being and quality of life for carers of people with dementia, and at what cost? A randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2008; 12 (4) [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​hta.​ac.​uk/​fullmono/​mon1204.​pdf [Accessed 2011 Mar 30]
51.
Bell C, Araki S, Neumann P. The association between caregiver burden and caregiver health-related quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2001; 15 (3): 129–36PubMedCrossRef
52.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271–92PubMedCrossRef
53.
Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 209–24PubMedCrossRef
54.
Bobinac A, van Exel J, Rutten F, et al. Caring for and caring about: disentangling the caregiving effect and the family effect. J Health Econ 2010; 29 (4): 549–56PubMedCrossRef
55.
Coast J, Flynn T, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67 (5): 874–82PubMedCrossRef
56.
Wilson E, Thalanany M, Shepstone L, et al. Befriending carers of people with dementia: a cost utility analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr 2009; 24 (6): 610–23CrossRef
57.
Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair-innings’ argument. Health Econ 1997; 6: 117–32PubMedCrossRef
58.
Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, et al. QALY maximisation and people’s preferences: a methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005; 14: 197–208PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
QALYs and Carers
Authors
Dr Hareth Al-Janabi
Terry N. Flynn
Joanna Coast
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 12/2011
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11593940-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 12/2011

PharmacoEconomics 12/2011 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: The cost effectiveness of rufinamide in the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome in the UK

Review Article

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Parkinson’s Disease

Review Article

Erlotinib Monotherapy for the Maintenance Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Previous Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylactic Lamivudine Use in Preventing Vertical Transmission of Hepatitis B Virus Infection

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B from a Canadian Public Payer Perspective