↓ Skip to main content

Health economics research into supporting carers of people with dementia: A systematic review of outcome measures

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health economics research into supporting carers of people with dementia: A systematic review of outcome measures
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-10-142
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carys Jones, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Barry Hounsome

Abstract

Advisory bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK, advocate using preference based instruments to measure the quality of life (QoL) component of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Cost per QALY is used to determine cost-effectiveness, and hence funding, of interventions. QALYs allow policy makers to compare the effects of different interventions across different patient groups. Generic measures may not be sensitive enough to fully capture the QoL effects for certain populations, such as carers, so there is a need to consider additional outcome measures, which are preference based where possible to enable cost-effectiveness analysis to be undertaken. This paper reviews outcome measures commonly used in health services research and health economics research involving carers of people with dementia. An electronic database search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included an outcome measure for carers of people with dementia. 2262 articles were identified. 455 articles describing 361 studies remained after exclusion criteria were applied. 228 outcome measures were extracted from the studies. Measures were categorised into 44 burden measures, 43 mastery measures, 61 mood measures, 32 QoL measures, 27 social support and relationships measures and 21 staff competency and morale measures. The choice of instrument has implications on funding decisions; therefore, researchers need to choose appropriate instruments for the population being measured and the type of intervention undertaken. If an instrument is not sensitive enough to detect changes in certain populations, the effect of an intervention may be underestimated, and hence interventions which may appear to be beneficial to participants are not deemed cost-effective and are not funded. If this is the case, it is essential that additional outcome measures which detect changes in broader QoL are included, whilst still retaining preference based utility measures such as EQ-5D to allow QALY calculation for comparability with other interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 121 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 23%
Student > Master 23 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 7 6%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 25%
Psychology 22 17%
Social Sciences 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 16 13%

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 21 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,356,317
of 11,191,240 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#500
of 1,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,738
of 307,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#12
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,191,240 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,175 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 307,445 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 55% of its contemporaries.