Title |
Long‐term cost of spouses’ informal support for dependent midlife stroke survivors
|
---|---|
Published in |
Brain and Behavior, May 2017
|
DOI | 10.1002/brb3.716 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Josefine Persson, Lars‐Åke Levin, Lukas Holmegaard, Petra Redfors, Mikael Svensson, Katarina Jood, Christina Jern, Christian Blomstrand, Gunilla Forsberg‐Wärleby |
Abstract |
Stroke is a major global disease that requires extensive care and support from society and relatives. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the long-term informal support and to estimate the annual cost of informal support provided by spouses to their stroke surviving partner. Data were based on the 7-year follow-up of the Sahlgrenska Academy Study on Ischemic Stroke. One-third of the spouses stated that they provided support to their stroke surviving partner. The magnitude of the support was assessed with a study-specific time-diary and was estimated for independent and dependent stroke survivors based on the scores of the modified Rankin Scale. To deal with skewed data, a two-part econometric model was used to estimate the annual cost of informal support. Cohabitant dyads of 221 stroke survivors aged <70 at stroke onset were included in the study. Spouses of independent stroke survivors (n = 188) provided on average 0.15 hr/day of practical support and 0.48 hr/day of being available. Corresponding figures for spouses of dependent stroke survivors (n = 33) were 5.00 regarding practical support and 9.51 regarding being available. The mean annual cost of informal support provided for independent stroke survivors was estimated at €991 and €25,127 for dependent stroke survivor. The opportunity cost of informal support provided to dependent midlife stroke survivors is of a major magnitude many years after stroke onset and should be considered in economic evaluations of health care. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 14% |
France | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 23% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
Other | 4 | 13% |
Unknown | 4 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 20% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 17% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 13% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 10% |
Psychology | 3 | 10% |
Other | 5 | 17% |
Unknown | 4 | 13% |