↓ Skip to main content

Using Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods to Estimate the Value of Informal Care: The Case of Children with Intellectual Disability

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Using Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods to Estimate the Value of Informal Care: The Case of Children with Intellectual Disability
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40273-018-0637-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheena Arora, Stephen Goodall, Rosalie Viney, Stewart Einfeld

Abstract

This research produces a preference-based monetary valuation of informal care provided to children with intellectual disability (ID) that can be directly applied in economic evaluations. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit an individual's willingness to accept compensation for different care tasks. Respondents were presented choice sets that included a care package comprising different amounts and types of care and asked to choose between the care package provided free of charge or providing that care themselves and receiving cash compensation. The care package included personal care, social support, household errands and housework, with the value of compensation, number of care hours provided and types of care varied across the choice sets. Choices were analysed using a generalised multinomial logit model and latent class model. A representative sample of 198 caregivers completed the survey (response rate 52%). Participants were recruited in Australia. Overall, caregivers would accept a minimum of Australian dollars ($A)20.61 to provide 1 h of care. The preferences for assistance varied significantly with different types of care tasks. Individuals placed the highest value on receiving assistance with social support ($A35.96) and the least value on receiving assistance with household errands ($A-0.92) CONCLUSIONS: This study produces a value of informal care provided to children with ID that can be directly applied in economic evaluations. The study shows that informal care tasks are not valued equally. Caregivers placed the most value on receiving assistance with social support, which may reflect the time spent by caregivers on these tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Lecturer 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Psychology 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,141,931
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#718
of 1,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,724
of 331,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#17
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 331,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.