Literature DB >> 18218169

Valuing care recipient and family caregiver time: a comparison of methods.

Denise N Guerriere1, Jennifer E Tranmer, Wendy J Ungar, Venika Manoharan, Peter C Coyte.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare the approaches used for valuing family caregiver and care recipient time devoted to providing and receiving care.
METHODS: Valuation approaches were operationalized within a cohort of cystic fibrosis care recipients (n = 110). Base-case analyses, grounded in human capital theory, applied earnings estimates to caregiving time to impute the market value of time lost from labor. Unpaid labor and leisure time was valued with a replacement cost (homemaker's wage rate). Total time costs were computed and sensitivity analyses were conducted to describe the effects of alternative valuation methods on total costs.
RESULTS: The mean time cost per care recipient-caregiver dyad over 28 days was $2,026CAD. The majority (76 percent) of time costs were due to losses from unpaid labor and leisure time. Varying the valuation of paid labor time did not result in significantly different total time costs (p = .0877). However, varying the method of valuing unpaid labor and leisure time did significantly affect total costs (p < .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Care recipients and caregivers primarily lost time from unpaid labor and leisure in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Moreover, when the above losses were aggregated, the method of valuation greatly influenced overall results. The findings clearly indicate that omitting caregiver and unpaid labor and leisure costs may result in an inaccurate assessment of ambulatory and home-based healthcare programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18218169     DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307080075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  2 in total

1.  Technology-Enabled Remote Monitoring and Self-Management - Vision for Patient Empowerment Following Cardiac and Vascular Surgery: User Testing and Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.

Authors:  Michael McGillion; Jennifer Yost; Andrew Turner; Duane Bender; Ted Scott; Sandra Carroll; Paul Ritvo; Elizabeth Peter; Andre Lamy; Gill Furze; Kirsten Krull; Valerie Dunlop; Amber Good; Nazari Dvirnik; Debbie Bedini; Frank Naus; Shirley Pettit; Shaunattonie Henry; Christine Probst; Joseph Mills; Elaine Gossage; Irene Travale; Janine Duquette; Christy Taberner; Sanjeev Bhavnani; James S Khan; David Cowan; Eric Romeril; John Lee; Tracey Colella; Manon Choinière; Jason Busse; Joel Katz; J Charles Victor; Jeffrey Hoch; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Sharon Kaasalainen; Salima Ladak; Sheila O'Keefe-McCarthy; Monica Parry; Daniel I Sessler; Michael Stacey; Bonnie Stevens; Robyn Stremler; Lehana Thabane; Judy Watt-Watson; Richard Whitlock; Joy C MacDermid; Marit Leegaard; Robert McKelvie; Michael Hillmer; Lynn Cooper; Gavin Arthur; Krista Sider; Susan Oliver; Karen Boyajian; Mark Farrow; Chris Lawton; Darryl Gamble; Jake Walsh; Mark Field; Sandra LeFort; Wendy Clyne; Maria Ricupero; Laurie Poole; Karsten Russell-Wood; Michael Weber; Jolene McNeil; Robyn Alpert; Sarah Sharpe; Sue Bhella; David Mohajer; Sem Ponnambalam; Naeem Lakhani; Rabia Khan; Peter Liu; P J Devereaux
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2016-08-01

Review 2.  Quantifying Family Spillover Effects in Economic Evaluations: Measurement and Valuation of Informal Care Time.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Jamison Pike; Rieza Soelaeman; J Mick Tilford
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.981

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.