↓ Skip to main content

Making Implicit Assumptions Explicit in the Costing of Informal Care: The Case of Head and Neck Cancer in Ireland

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
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
Making Implicit Assumptions Explicit in the Costing of Informal Care: The Case of Head and Neck Cancer in Ireland
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0490-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Hanly, Rebecca Maguire, Myles Balfe, Eleanor O’Sullivan, Linda Sharp

Abstract

From a health service perspective, informal care is often viewed as a potentially cost-effective way of transferring costs out of the formal healthcare sector. However, informal care is not a free resource. Our objective was to assess the impact of alternative valuation methods and key assumptions on the cost of informal care. Informal carers who assisted in the care of a head and neck cancer survivor for at least 1 year were sent a postal questionnaire during January-June 2014 requesting information on time spent on caring tasks in the month prior to the survey. Time was costed using the opportunity cost approach (OCA; base-case) and the generalist (GRCA) and specialist (SRCA) replacement cost approaches. The impact on results of how household work and informal carers not in paid employment are treated were investigated. We estimated a cost of €20,613 annually in the base case (OCA - mean wage) for informal care. The GRCA and SRCA equivalent costs were 36% (€13,196) and 31% (€14,196) lower, respectively. In the extreme scenario of applying a 'zero' opportunity cost to carers not in paid employment, costs fell by 67% below the base case. While the choice of costing method is important for monetary valuation, the sociodemographic and economic characteristics of the underlying population can be equally so. This is especially important given the heterogeneous treatment of older carers, female carers and carers not in paid employment in the OCA. To limit this, we would suggest using the SRCA to value informal care across heterogeneous carer populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 12%
Psychology 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 7 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 February 2017.
All research outputs
#12,269,353
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,202
of 1,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,421
of 262,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#17
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 262,817 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.