Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T02:50:45.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement of informal care time in a study of patients with dementia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2008

Simone Neubauer ,
Rolf Holle ,
Petra Menn ,
Maria Grossfeld-Schmitz  and
Elmar Graesel
Simone Neubauer*
Affiliation:
Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany
Rolf Holle
Affiliation:
Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany
Petra Menn
Affiliation:
Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany
Maria Grossfeld-Schmitz
Affiliation:
University Hospital Erlangen, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Erlangen, Germany
Elmar Graesel
Affiliation:
University Hospital Erlangen, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Erlangen, Germany
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Simone Neubauer, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Ingolstaedter Landstr. 1, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany. Phone: +49 (0) 89 3187 1240; Fax: +49 (0) 89 3187 3375. Email: simone.neubauer@helmholtz-muenchen.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Previous assessments of informal care time have tended to consider only the amount of time spent with the patient by the primary informal caregiver; however, in many cases, more than one person is providing care for the patient. We assess total informal care time of people caring for patients with dementia, and estimate the bias that can arise if consideration is not made of the time spent by all participating informal caregivers.

Method: We used an extended version of the questions on informal care time from the Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument. Caregivers were asked to state the number of days and the number of hours on a typical day they had assisted the patient in activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental ADL (IADL), and supervision during the last four weeks. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify factors that could account for the amount of informal care time.

Results: 357 informal caregivers took part. Values were missing from only 4.5% of all interviews. On average, the primary informal caregiver cared for the patient 1.5, 2.1 and 1.9 hours per day in ADL, IADL and supervision respectively. Fifty-seven percent of all patients had more than one informal caregiver. Total informal care time was underestimated by about 14% if the time of caregivers other than the primary caregiver was not taken into account. The informal care time was significantly higher if the caregiver was the patient's partner and the patient's health status was lower.

Conclusion: Our results show that most previous studies probably underestimated costs of informal care because the time of informal caregivers other than the primary caregiver was not considered.

Keywords

dementiainformal careRUDmeasurementeconomic evaluation
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 20 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 1160 - 1176
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2008

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

Belle, S. H. et al. (2006). Enhancing the quality of life of dementia caregivers from different ethnic or racial groups: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 145, 727–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., Koopmanschap, M. A. and Rutten, F. F. (1999). The valuation of informal care in economic appraisal. A consideration of individual choice and societal costs of time. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 15, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., Van Den Berg, B., Van Den Bos, G. A. and Koopmanschap, M. A. (2005). Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring. Health Policy, 74, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., van Gorp, B. and Redekop, W. K. (2006). The CarerQol instrument: a new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1005–1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clipp, E. C. and Moore, M. J. (1995). Caregiver time use: an outcome measure in clinical trial research on Alzheimer's disease. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 58, 228–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, K. L. et al. (1997). The Caregiver Activity Survey (CAS): development and validation of a new measure for caregivers of persons with Alzheimer's disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 978–988.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Droes, R. M., Breebaart, E., Meiland, F. J., Van Tilburg, W. and Mellenbergh, G. J. (2004). Effect of Meeting Centres Support Program on feelings of competence of family carers and delay of institutionalization of people with dementia. Aging and Mental Health, 8, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M., MJ, S., Torrance, G. W., O'Brien, B. and Stoddart, G. (2005). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engels, D. et al. (2005). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen selbständiger Lebensführung in privaten Haushalten (MUG III) – Potential and Limitation of Independent Living in Private Households in Germany. Munich: Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth.Google Scholar
Ferri, C. P. et al. (2005). Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. The Lancet, 366, 2112–2117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, M., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B. and Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, A. P. et al. (2005). (Cost)-effectiveness of case-management by district nurses among primary informal caregivers of older adults with dementia symptoms and the older adults who receive informal care: design of a randomized controlled trial [ISCRTN83135728]. BMC Public Health, 5, 133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jonsson, L. et al. (2006). Determinants of costs of care for patients with Alzheimer's disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 449–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lubke, N., Meinck, M. and von Renteln-Kruse, W. (2004). The Barthel Index in geriatrics. A context analysis for the Hamburg Classification Manual. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 37, 316–326.Google ScholarPubMed
Mittelman, M. S. et al. (1993). An intervention that delays institutionalization of Alzheimer's disease patients: treatment of spouse-caregivers. The Gerontologist, 33, 730–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Shea, E. and O'Reilly, S. (2000). The economic and social cost of dementia in Ireland. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15, 208–218.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smithson, M. and Verkuilen, J. (2006). A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychological Methods, 11, 54–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, B. and Spauwen, P. (2006). Measurement of informal care: an empirical study into valid measurement of time spent on informal caregiving. Health Economics, 15, 447–460.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. European Journal of Health Economics, 5, 36–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, B., Al, M., Brouwer, W., van Exel, J. and Koopmanschap, M. (2005a). Economic valuation of informal care: the conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 1342–1355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, B., Brouwer, W., van Exel, J. and Koopmanschap, M. (2005b). Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving. Health Economics, 14, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, B., Brouwer, W., van Exel, J., Koopmanschap, M., van den Bos, G. A. and Rutten, F. (2005c). Economic valuation of informal care: Lessons from the application of the opportunity costs and proxy good methods. Social Science & Medicine.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahle, M., Haller, S. and Spiegel, R. (1996). Validation of the NOSGER (Nurses’ Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients): reliability and validity of a caregiver rating instrument. International Psychogeriatrics, 8, 525–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimo, A. and Nordberg, G. (2007). Validity and reliability of assessments of time. Comparisons of direct observations and estimates of time by the use of the resource utilization in dementia (RUD)-instrument. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 44, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimo, A., Wetterholm, A. L., Mastey, V. and Winblad, B. (1998). Evaluation of the healthcare resource and caregiver time in anti-dementia drug trials: a quantitative battery. In Wimo, A., Jönsson, B., Karlsson, G. and Winblad, B. (eds.), Health Economics of Dementia (pp. 465–499) Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google ScholarPubMed
Wimo, A., Nordberg, G., Jansson, W. and Grafstrom, M. (2000). Assessment of informal services to demented people with the RUD instrument. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15, 969–971.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimo, A., Jonsson, L. and Winblad, B. (2006). An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and direct costs of dementia in 2003. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 21, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed