Heesoo Joo1, Mary G George2, Jing Fang2, Guijing Wang2. 1. Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: hjoo@cdc.gov. 2. Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and long-term disability. However, the indirect costs of stroke, such as productivity loss and costs of informal care, have not been well studied. To better understand this, we conducted a literature review of the indirect costs of stroke. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EconLit, with the key words stroke, cerebrovascular disease, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, cost-of-illness, productivity loss, indirect cost, economic burden, and informal caregiving was conducted. We identified original research articles published during 1990-2012 in English-language peer-reviewed journals. We summarized indirect costs by study type, cost categories, and study settings. RESULTS: We found 31 original research articles that investigated the indirect cost of stroke. Six of these investigated indirect costs only; the other 25 studies were cost-of-illness studies that included indirect costs as a component. Of the 31 articles, 6 examined indirect costs in the United States, with 2 of these focused solely on indirect costs. Because of diverse methods, kinds of data, and definitions of cost used in the studies, the literature indicated a very wide range internationally in the proportion of the total cost of stroke that is represented by indirect costs (from 3% to 71%). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the literature indicates that indirect costs account for a significant portion of the economic burden of stroke, and there is a pressing need to develop proper approaches to analyze these costs and to make better use of relevant data sources for such studies or establish new ones. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND:Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and long-term disability. However, the indirect costs of stroke, such as productivity loss and costs of informal care, have not been well studied. To better understand this, we conducted a literature review of the indirect costs of stroke. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EconLit, with the key words stroke, cerebrovascular disease, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, cost-of-illness, productivity loss, indirect cost, economic burden, and informal caregiving was conducted. We identified original research articles published during 1990-2012 in English-language peer-reviewed journals. We summarized indirect costs by study type, cost categories, and study settings. RESULTS: We found 31 original research articles that investigated the indirect cost of stroke. Six of these investigated indirect costs only; the other 25 studies were cost-of-illness studies that included indirect costs as a component. Of the 31 articles, 6 examined indirect costs in the United States, with 2 of these focused solely on indirect costs. Because of diverse methods, kinds of data, and definitions of cost used in the studies, the literature indicated a very wide range internationally in the proportion of the total cost of stroke that is represented by indirect costs (from 3% to 71%). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the literature indicates that indirect costs account for a significant portion of the economic burden of stroke, and there is a pressing need to develop proper approaches to analyze these costs and to make better use of relevant data sources for such studies or establish new ones. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Stroke; cost of informal care; economic burden; indirect cost; productivity loss
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; David Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Pamela J Schreiner; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anders Gustavsson; Mikael Svensson; Frank Jacobi; Christer Allgulander; Jordi Alonso; Ettore Beghi; Richard Dodel; Mattias Ekman; Carlo Faravelli; Laura Fratiglioni; Brenda Gannon; David Hilton Jones; Poul Jennum; Albena Jordanova; Linus Jönsson; Korinna Karampampa; Martin Knapp; Gisela Kobelt; Tobias Kurth; Roselind Lieb; Mattias Linde; Christina Ljungcrantz; Andreas Maercker; Beatrice Melin; Massimo Moscarelli; Amir Musayev; Fiona Norwood; Martin Preisig; Maura Pugliatti; Juergen Rehm; Luis Salvador-Carulla; Brigitte Schlehofer; Roland Simon; Hans-Christoph Steinhausen; Lars Jacob Stovner; Jean-Michel Vallat; Peter Van den Bergh; Peter Van den Bergh; Jim van Os; Pieter Vos; Weili Xu; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen; Bengt Jönsson; Jes Olesen Journal: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 4.600
Authors: Juan Oliva-Moreno; Marta Trapero-Bertran; Luz Maria Peña-Longobardo; Raúl Del Pozo-Rubio Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Douglas M Bennion; Emily A Haltigan; Alexander J Irwin; Lauren L Donnangelo; Robert W Regenhardt; David J Pioquinto; Daniel L Purich; Colin Sumners Journal: Hypertension Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 10.190