↓ Skip to main content

QALYs and Carers

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
QALYs and Carers
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, December 2011
DOI 10.2165/11593940-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hareth Al-Janabi, Terry N. Flynn, Joanna Coast

Abstract

When going 'beyond the patient', to measure QALYs for unpaid carers, a number of additional methodological considerations and value judgements must be made. While there is no theoretical reason to restrict the measurement of QALYs to patients, decisions have to be made about which carers to consider, what instruments to use and how to aggregate and present QALYs for carers and patients. Current, albeit limited, practice in measuring QALY gains to carers in economic evaluation varies, suggesting that there may be inconsistency in judgements about whether interventions are deemed cost effective. While conventional health-related quality-of-life tools can, in theory, be used to estimate QALYs, there are both theoretical and empirical concerns over the suitability of their use with carers. Measures that take a broader view of health or well-being may be more appropriate. Incorporating QALYs of carers in economic evaluations may have important distributional consequences and, therefore, greater normative discussion over the appropriateness of incorporating these impacts is required. In the longer term, more flexible forms of cost-per-QALY analysis may be required to take account of the broader impacts on carers and the weight these impacts should receive in decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2019.
All research outputs
#13,763,047
of 23,337,345 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,432
of 1,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,456
of 243,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,337,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.