Background/Objective. Economic evaluations adopting a societal perspective need to include informal care whenever relevant. However, in practice, informal care is often neglected, because there are few validated instruments to measure and value informal care for inclusion in economic evaluations. The CarerQol, which is such an instrument, measures the impact of informal care on 7 important burden dimensions (CarerQol-7D) and values this in terms of general quality of life (CarerQol-VAS). The objective of the study was to calculate utility scores based on relative utility weights for the CarerQol-7D. These tariffs will facilitate inclusion of informal care in economic evaluations. Methods. The CarerQol-7D tariff was derived with a discrete choice experiment conducted as an Internet survey among the general adult population in the Netherlands (N = 992). The choice set contained 2 unlabeled alternatives described in terms of the 7 CarerQol-7D dimensions (level range: “no,”“some,” and “a lot”). An efficient experimental design with priors obtained from a pilot study (N = 104) was used. Data were analyzed with a panel mixed multinomial parameter model including main and interaction effects of the attributes. Results. The utility attached to informal care situations was significantly higher when this situation was more attractive in terms of fewer problems and more fulfillment or support. The interaction term between the CarerQol-7D dimensions physical health and mental health problems also significantly explained this utility. The tariff was constructed by adding up the relative utility weights per category of all CarerQol-7D dimensions and the interaction term. Conclusions. We obtained a tariff providing standard utility scores for caring situations described with the CarerQol-7D. This facilitates the inclusion of informal care in economic evaluations.
SchulzRBeachSR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA. 1999;282(23):2215–19.
2.
BrouwerWBVan ExelNJVan den BergBVan den BosGAKoopmanschapMA. Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring. Health Policy. 2005;74(1):85–99.
3.
Broese van GroenouMDe BoerA. Findings: positive experiences. In: De BoerABroese van GroenouMTimmermansJ, eds. Informal Care. An Overview of the Support Given by and to Informal Carers in 2007. The Hague: SCP; 2009. p 167–83.
4.
Broese van GroenouMDe BoerA. Findings: burden of informal carers. In: De BoerABroese van GroenouMTimmermansJ, eds. Informal Care. An Overview of the Support Given by and to Informal Carers in 2007. The Hague: SCP; 2009. p. 144–65.
5.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinM. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
6.
DrummondMFSculpherMJTorranceGWO’BrienBJStoddartGL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press;2005.
7.
JacobsPOhinmaaABradyB. Providing systematic guidance in pharmacoeconomic guidelines for analysing costs. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(2):143–53.
8.
Health Care Insurance Board. Guidelines for Pharmaco-Economic Research; Evaluation and Actualisation [Richtlijnen voor farmaco-economisch onderzoek; evaluatie en actualisatie]. College voor Zorgverzekeringen. Diemen; 2005.
9.
StonePWChapmanRHSandbergEALiljasBNeumannPJ. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses: variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(1):111–24.
10.
Van den BergBBrouwerWBKoopmanschapMA. Economic valuation of informal care: an overview of methods and applications. Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5(1):36–45.
11.
FrancisJMcDaidD. SCIE’s work on economics and the importance of informal care. In: CutisL, ed. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2009. Canterbury (UK): University of Kent; 2009. p 27–33.
12.
McDaidD. Estimating the costs of informal care for people with Alzheimer’s disease: methodological and practical challenges. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2001;16(4):400–5.
13.
Van den BergBBrouwerWVan ExelJKoopmanschapMVan den BosGARuttenF. Economic valuation of informal care: lessons from the application of the opportunity costs and proxy good methods. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(4):835–45.
14.
Van den BergBBleichrodtHEeckhoudtL. The economic value of informal care: a study of informal caregivers’ and patients’ willingness to pay and willingness to accept for informal care. Health Econ. 2005;14(4):363–76.
15.
De MeijerCBrouwerWKoopmanschapMVan den BergBVan ExelJ. The value of informal care—a further investigation of the feasibility of contingent valuation in informal caregivers. Health Econ. 2010;19(7):755–71.
16.
Van den BergBAlMVan ExelJKoopmanschapMBrouwerW. Economic valuation of informal care: conjoint analysis applied in a heterogeneous population of informal caregivers. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1041–50.
17.
Van den BergBFerrer-I-CarbonellA. Monetary valuation of informal care: the well-being valuation method. Health Econ. 2007;16(11):1227–44.
18.
BrouwerWBFVan ExelNJATilfordMJ. Incorporating caregiver and family effects in economic evaluations of child health. In: UngarWJ, ed. Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2010;55–76.
19.
KoopmanschapMAVan ExelJNVan den BergBBrouwerWB. An overview of methods and applications to value informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(4):269–80.
20.
BrouwerWBFKoopmanschapMARuttenFFH. Productivity costs measurement through quality of life? A response to the recommendation of the Washington Panel. Health Econ. 1998;6(3):253–9.
21.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
22.
DeekenJFTaylorKLManganPYabroffKRInghamJM. Care for the caregivers: a review of self-report instruments developed to measure the burden, needs, and quality of life of informal caregivers. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003;26(4):922–53.
23.
Van ExelNJScholteopReimerWJBrouwerWBVan den BergBKoopmanschapMAVan den BosGA. Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: a comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(2):203–14.
24.
Al-JanabiHCoastJFlynnTN. What do people value when they provide unpaid care for an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(1):111–21.
25.
BrouwerWBVan ExelNJVan GorpBRedekopWK. 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(6):1005–21.
26.
Asmus-SzepesiKde VreedePNieboerA. Evaluation design of a reactivation care program to prevent functional loss in hospitalised elderly: a cohort study including a randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(1):36.
27.
CrammJMvan DijkHLottersFvan ExelJNieboerAP. Evaluating an integrated neighbourhood approach to improve well-being of frail elderly in a Dutch community: a study protocol. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4(1):532.
28.
FlycktLLöthmanAJörgensenLRylanderAKoernigT. Burden of informal care giving to patients with psychoses: a descriptive and methodological study. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2013;59(2):137–46.
29.
MeeuwsenEJMelisRJFAdangE. Cost-effectiveness of post-diagnosis treatment in dementia coordinated by Multidisciplinary Memory Clinics in comparison to treatment coordinated by general practitioners: an example of a pragmatic trial. J Nutr Health Aging. 2009;13(3):242–8.
30.
PangalilaRFvan den BosGAMStamHJvan ExelNJABrouwerWBFRoebroeckME. Subjective caregiver burden of parents of adults with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(12):988–96.
31.
PayakachatNTilfordJMBrouwerWBFvan ExelNJGrosseSD. Measuring health and well-being effects in family caregivers of children with craniofacial malformations. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(9):1485–95.
32.
HoefmanRJvan ExelNJAFoetsMBrouwerWBF. Sustained informal care: the feasibility, construct validity and test–retest reliability of the CarerQol-instrument to measure the impact of informal care in long-term care. Aging Ment Health. 2011;15(8):1018–27.
33.
HoefmanRJVan ExelNJARedekopWKLooren-de JongSBrouwerWBF. A new test of the validity of the CarerQol instrument: measuring “care-related quality of life” of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(6):875–87.
34.
BrazierJRatcliffeJSalomonJATsuchiyaA. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford (UK), New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2007.
35.
DolanP. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.
36.
LamersLMMcDonnellJStalmeierPFKrabbePFBusschbachJJ. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15(10):1121–32.
37.
Al-JanabiHFlynnTNCoastJ. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Med Decis Making. 2011;5(3):458–68.
38.
LouviereJFlynnTCarsonR. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling. 2010;3(3):57–72.
39.
McFaddenD. The measurement of urban travel demand. J Public Econ. 1974;3(4):303–28.
40.
HensherDARoseJMGreeneWH. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2005.
41.
BliemerMCJRoseJM. Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: an empirical study in air travel choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.2011;45(1):63–79.
42.
RoseJMBliemerMCJ. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transport Reviews. 2009;29(5):587–617.
43.
CarlssonFMartinssonP. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 2003;12(4):281–94.
44.
BliemerMCJRoseJMHessS. Approximation of Bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs. Journal of Choice Modelling. 2008;1(1):98–127.
45.
HensherDAGreeneWH. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation. 2003;30(2):133–76.
46.
HoyosD. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ. 2010;69(8):1595–603.
47.
SwaitJLouviereJ. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Market Res. 1993;30(3):305–14.
48.
Van den BergBAlMBrouwerWVan ExelJKoopmanschapM. Economic valuation of informal care: the conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(6):1342–55.
49.
De GrootAWMVan PraagBMSVelthuijsenJWZijderveldCE. Wie dan zorgt. De zorgtijd voor kinderen en ouderen onderzocht: zelf zorgen of hulp inhuren? In: HazeuCAEggelteJJAButterFAGd, eds. Naar een Vrijwel Volledige Arbeidsparticipatie. 113th ed.The Hague: WRR; 2000;143–208.
50.
MentzakisERyanMMcNameeP. Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity. Health Econ. 2011;20:331–47.
51.
CaussadeSOrtúzarJDRizziLIHensherDA. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 2005;39(7):621–40.
52.
BechMKjaerTLauridsenJ. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):273–86.
53.
DeShazoJFermoG. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manage. 2002;44(1):123–43.
