Eve Wittenberg1, Lyndon P James2, Lisa A Prosser3. 1. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. ewittenb@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of research has identified health-related quality-of-life effects for caregivers and family members of ill patients (i.e. 'spillover effects'), yet these are rarely considered in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to catalog spillover-related health utilities to facilitate their consideration in CEAs. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the medical and economic literatures (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EconLit, from inception through 3 April 2018) to identify articles that reported preference-based measures of spillover effects. We used keywords for utility measures combined with caregivers, family members, and burden. RESULTS: Of 3695 articles identified, 80 remained after screening: 8 (10%) reported spillover utility per se, as utility or disutility (i.e. utility loss); 25 (30%) reported a comparison group, either population values (n = 9) or matched, non-caregiver/family member or unaffected individuals' utilities (n = 16; 3 reported both spillover and a comparison group); and 50 (63%) reported caregiver/family member utilities only. Alzheimer's disease/dementia was the most commonly studied disease/condition, and the EQ-5D was the most commonly used measurement instrument. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive catalog of utilities showcases the spectrum of diseases and conditions for which caregiver and family members' spillover effects have been measured, and the variation in measurement methods used. In general, utilities indicated a loss in quality of life associated with being a caregiver or family member of an ill relative. Most studies reported caregiver/family member utility without any comparator, limiting the ability to infer spillover effects. Nevertheless, these values provide a starting point for considering spillover effects in the context of CEA, opening the door for more comprehensive analyses.
BACKGROUND: A growing body of research has identified health-related quality-of-life effects for caregivers and family members of ill patients (i.e. 'spillover effects'), yet these are rarely considered in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to catalog spillover-related health utilities to facilitate their consideration in CEAs. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the medical and economic literatures (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EconLit, from inception through 3 April 2018) to identify articles that reported preference-based measures of spillover effects. We used keywords for utility measures combined with caregivers, family members, and burden. RESULTS: Of 3695 articles identified, 80 remained after screening: 8 (10%) reported spillover utility per se, as utility or disutility (i.e. utility loss); 25 (30%) reported a comparison group, either population values (n = 9) or matched, non-caregiver/family member or unaffected individuals' utilities (n = 16; 3 reported both spillover and a comparison group); and 50 (63%) reported caregiver/family member utilities only. Alzheimer's disease/dementia was the most commonly studied disease/condition, and the EQ-5D was the most commonly used measurement instrument. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive catalog of utilities showcases the spectrum of diseases and conditions for which caregiver and family members' spillover effects have been measured, and the variation in measurement methods used. In general, utilities indicated a loss in quality of life associated with being a caregiver or family member of an ill relative. Most studies reported caregiver/family member utility without any comparator, limiting the ability to infer spillover effects. Nevertheless, these values provide a starting point for considering spillover effects in the context of CEA, opening the door for more comprehensive analyses.
Authors: Márta Péntek; László Gulácsi; Valentin Brodszky; Petra Baji; Imre Boncz; Gábor Pogány; Julio López-Bastida; Renata Linertová; Juan Oliva-Moreno; Pedro Serrano-Aguilar; Manuel Posada-de-la-Paz; Domenica Taruscio; Georgi Iskrov; Arrigo Schieppati; Johann Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg; Panos Kanavos; Karine Chevreul; Ulf Persson; Giovanni Fattore Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2016-04-09
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Catarina Sjolander; Bo Rolander; Johannes Järhult; Jan Mårtensson; Gerd Ahlstrom Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Meghan C Halley; Jennifer L Young; Liliana Fernandez; Jennefer N Kohler; Jonathan A Bernstein; Matthew T Wheeler; Holly K Tabor Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Ashley A Leech; Pei-Jung Lin; Brittany D'Cruz; Susan K Parsons; Tara A Lavelle Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: B Rodríguez-Sánchez; S Daugbjerg; L M Peña-Longobardo; J Oliva-Moreno; I Aranda-Reneo; A Cicchetti; J López-Bastida Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2022-05-20
Authors: Siok Swan Tan; Marta M Pisano; An Ld Boone; Graham Baker; Yves-Marie Pers; Alberto Pilotto; Verushka Valsecchi; Sabrina Zora; Xuxi Zhang; Irene Fierloos; Hein Raat Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 3.390