Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T08:06:35.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health economic evaluations of interventions for supporting adult carers in the UK: a systematic review from the NICE Guideline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2021

Ferruccio Pelone Open the ORCID record for Ferruccio Pelone [Opens in a new window] ,
Paul Jacklin ,
Jennifer M. Francis  and
Benjamin Purchase
Ferruccio Pelone*
Affiliation:
National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK
Paul Jacklin
Affiliation:
National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK
Jennifer M. Francis
Affiliation:
National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK
Benjamin Purchase
Affiliation:
National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Ferruccio Pelone, National Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, 10-18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK. Email: fpelone@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Policy making increasingly needs cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation. The objective of this review is to identify and to investigate evidence evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed to support adult carers, drawing on the National Institute for Health and Care guideline on Supporting Adult Carers.

Methods:

The protocol of the review was aimed to identify the economic studies published from 2003 onwards on all types of interventions for supporting adult carers. The applicability to the review and methodological quality of included economic evaluations were assessed using pre-established checklists specified in the National Institute for Health and Care (NICE) manual for developing guidelines.

Results:

Our search yielded 10 economic evaluations. The main types of strategies evaluated were psychological and emotional support, training, and education support interventions. We found that the interventions more likely to be cost-effective were usually tailored to the specific carers’ circumstances and delivered face-to-face and were multi-component in nature, including elements of psycho-education, training, psychological and practical support. The narrative synthesis of results indicated a wide variation in cost-effectiveness findings and methodological quality.

Conclusions:

This article indicates that systematic reviews of economic evaluations can be considered as an appropriate means to support decision makers in allocating health and social care resources. Given the high economic and social impact of unpaid caring, and based on the research gaps identified, we recommend that future economics research should be targeted on interventions for identifying carers; and programs for providing carers with support and advice to help them to enter, remain in or return to paid work.

Keywords

carerssystematic revieweconomic evaluationshealth and social careevidence-based policy making
Type
Review Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 34 , Special Issue 9: Issue Theme: Non-Medical Social Determinants of Health , September 2022 , pp. 839 - 852
Copyright
© International Psychogeriatric Association 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, C. (2016). A cost-benefit analysis of a CBT for carers of people with dementia group. British Psychological Society, 18-24 [online]. Available at: https://shop.bps.org.uk/fpop-bulletin-133-january-2016; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
Anderson, R. (2010). Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility? Health Economics, 19, 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1486 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckner, L. and Yeandle, S. (2015). Valuing carers 2015: the rising value of carers’ support. London: Carers UK [Online]. Available at: http://www.carersuk.org/for-professionals/policy/policy-library/valuing-carers-2015; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
Calvó-Perxas, L., Vilalta-Franch, J., Litwin, H., Turró-Garriga, O., Mira, P. and Garre-Olmo, J. (2018). What seems to matter in public policy and the health of informal caregivers? A cross-sectional study in 12 European countries. PloS One, 13, e0194232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194232 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2009). Chapter 5: Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations. In: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. University of York, UK [online]. Available at: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
Charlesworth, G., Shepstone, L., Wilson, E., Thalanany, M., Mugford, M. and Poland, F. (2008). 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 Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 12, iii–78. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta12040 Google Scholar
Chatterton, M. L. et al. (2016). Economic evaluation of a psychological intervention for high distress cancer patients and carers: costs and quality-adjusted life years. Psycho-oncology, 25, 857–864. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4020 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkson, P., Davies, L., Jasper, R., Loynes, N., Challis, D. and Home Support in Dementia (HoSt-D) Programme Management Group. (2017). A Systematic Review of the Economic Evidence for Home Support Interventions in Dementia. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20, 1198–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drucker, A. M., Fleming, P. and Chan, A. W. (2016). Research Techniques Made Simple: Assessing Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 136, e109–e114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M. F. et al. (2009). Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 12, 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00489.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J. and Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programme. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forster, A. et al. (2013). A structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke (TRACS): a cluster randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet (London, England), 382, 2069–2076. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61603-7 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goeree, R. et al. (2011). Transferability of health technology assessments and economic evaluations: a systematic review of approaches for assessment and application. Clinico Economics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, 3, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S14404 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomes, B., Calanzani, N., Curiale, V., McCrone, P. and Higginson, I. J. (2013). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home palliative care services for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD007760. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007760.pub2 Google ScholarPubMed
Greco, T., Zangrillo, A., Biondi-Zoccai, G. and Landoni, G. (2013). Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints. Heart, Lung and Vessels, 5, 219–225.Google ScholarPubMed
Guets, W., Al-Janabi, H. and Perrier, L. (2020). Cost-Utility Analyses of Interventions for Informal Carers: A Systematic and Critical Review. PharmacoEconomics, 38, 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00874-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S. and Stewart, G. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heslin, M., Forster, A., Healey, A. and Patel, A. (2016). A systematic review of the economic evidence for interventions for family carers of stroke patients. Clinical Rehabilitation, 30, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215515575334 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, C., Edwards, R. T. and Hounsome, B. (2012). A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions for supporting informal caregivers of people with dementia residing in the community. International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610211001207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalra, L. et al. (2004). Training carers of stroke patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 328(7448), 1099. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1099 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschowitz, J. and Brandt, M. (2017). Health effects of informal caregiving across Europe: a longitudinal approach. Social Science and Medicine (1982), 173, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.036 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Livingston, G. et al. (2014). START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manual-based coping strategy programme in promoting the mental health of carers of people with dementia. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 18, 1–242. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18610 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNeil Vroomen, J. et al. (2016). The cost-effectiveness of two forms of case management compared to a control group for persons with dementia and their informal caregivers from a societal perspective. PloS One, 11, e0160908. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160908 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, A. et al. (2007). A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 11, 1–iii. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta11150 Google ScholarPubMed
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. and PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morissette, K., Tricco, A. C., Horsley, T., Chen, M. H. and Moher, D. (2011). Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MR000025. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000025.pub2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, A. et al. (2012). The effect of English-Language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 28, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462312000086 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, K. H., Comans, T. A. and Green, C. (2018). Where are we at with model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia? a systematic review and quality assessment. International Psychogeriatrics, 30, 1593–1605. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610218001291 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). (2012). Appendix G: Methodology checklist: economic evaluations. In: Developing NICE guidelines: the manual [Online]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/resources/the-guidelines-manual-appendices-bi-2549703709/chapter/appendix-g-methodology-checklist-economic-evaluations; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal [Online]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
NICE. (2017). NICE to work with partners on developing new ways to measure QoL across health and social care 2017 [Online]. Available at: from: https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-to-work-with-partners-on-developing-new-ways-to-measure-quality-of-life-across-health-and-social-care; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
NICE. (2018). Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual [Online]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/developing-nice-guidelines-the-manual.pdf; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
NICE. (2020). Supporting adult carers [Online]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng150; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
Nickel, F., Barth, J. and Kolominsky-Rabas, P. L. (2018). Health economic evaluations of non-pharmacological interventions for persons with dementia and their informal caregivers: a systematic review. BMC Geriatrics, 18, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0751-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliva-Moreno, J., Peña-Longobardo, L. M., García-Mochón, L., Del Río Lozano, M., Mosquera Metcalfe, I. and García-Calvente, M. (2019). The economic value of time of informal care and its determinants (The CUIDARSE Study). PloS One, 14, e0217016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, A., Knapp, M., Evans, A., Perez, I. and Kalra, L. (2004). Training care givers of stroke patients: economic evaluation. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 328, 1102. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1102 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pham, B. and Krahn, M. (2014). End-of-Life Care Interventions: An Economic Analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series, 14, 1–70.Google ScholarPubMed
Pickard, L., King, D. and Knapp, M. (2016). The ‘visibility’ of unpaid care in England. Journal of Social Work (London, England), 16, 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017315569645 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards-Jones, S., Mihalopoulos, C., Heckel, L., Gunn, K. M., Tan, M. and Livingston, P. M. (2019). An economic evaluation of a telephone outcall intervention for informal carers of cancer patients in Australia: an assessment of costs and quality-adjusted-life-years. Psycho-oncology, 28, 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4970CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sculpher, M. J. et al. (2004). Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 8, iii–192. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8490 Google ScholarPubMed
Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Drummond, M. and McCabe, C. (2006). Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making? Health Economics, 15, 677–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1093 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, B., Brouwer, W. B. and Koopmanschap, M. A. (2004). Economic valuation of informal care. An overview of methods and applications. The European Journal of Health Economics: HEPAC: Health Economics in Prevention and Care, 5, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-003-0189-y CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherly, H. L. A. et al. (2017). Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods. Discussion Paper. CHE Research Paper, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK [Online]. Available at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135405/1/CHERP150_social_care_evaluation_methods.pdf; last accessed 10 June 2020Google Scholar
Williams, I., McIver, S., Moore, D. and Bryan, S. (2008). The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 12, iii–175. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta12070 Google ScholarPubMed
Woods, R. T. et al. (2016). REMCARE: reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family caregivers - effectiveness and cost-effectiveness pragmatic multicentre randomised trial. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 16, v–116. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16480 Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pelone et al. supplementary material

Pelone et al. supplementary material

Download Pelone et al. supplementary material(File)
File 40.6 KB