Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 501–511 | Cite as

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

  • Sheena AroraEmail author
  • Stephen Goodall
  • Rosalie Viney
  • Stewart Einfeld
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the caregivers who kindly donated their time to participate in this research. We would also like to thank all members of the MHYPEDD (Mental Health of Young People with Developmental Disabilities) study team, particularly the team from Monash University and the University of Sydney, who spent many hours assisting with data collection. Special thanks also to Kristina Clarke, who assisted with setting up the online questionnaire.

Author Contributions

SA, SG and RV developed the research question and methodology. All authors contributed to the design of the study. SA constructed the models and performed the data analysis. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and approved the final version for publication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study received funding via a programme grant from the Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council (grant no. 1016919). We would also like to thank the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, which provided support for this research.

Conflicts of interest

Sheena Arora, Stephen Goodall, Rosalie Viney and Stewart Einfeld have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    McDaid D. Estimating the costs of informal care for people with Alzheimer’s disease: methodological and practical challenges. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2001;16:400–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodrich K, Kaambwa B, Al-Janabi H. The inclusion of informal care in applied economic evaluation: a review. Value Health. 2012;15:975–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Exel J, Bobinac A, Koopmanschap M, et al. The invisible hands made visible: recognizing the value of informal care in healthcare decision-making. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:557–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krol M, Papenburg J, Van Exel J. Does including informal care in economic evaluations matter? A systematic review of inclusion and impact of informal care in cost-effectiveness studies. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33:123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van den Berg B, Brouwer W, van Exel J, et al. Economic valuation of informal care: Lessons from the application of the opportunity costs and proxy good methods. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:835–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van den Berg B, Brouwer WBF, Koppmanschap MA. Economic valuation of informal care: an overview of methods and applications. Eur J Health Econ. 2004;5:36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Caring in the community, Australia. Sydney: Commonw Aust; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Exel J, Bobinac A, Koopmanschap M, et al. Providing informal care: a burden and a blessing. Geneva Assoc Inform Newsl-Health Ageing. 2007;16:10–3.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith K, Wright K. Informal care and economic appraisal: a discussion of possible methodological approaches. Health Econ. 1994;3:137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murphy NA, Christian B, Caplin DA, et al. The health of caregivers for children with disabilities: caregiver perspectives. Child Care Health Dev. 2007;33:180–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raina P, O’Donnell M, Schwellnus H, et al. Caregiving process and caregiver burden: conceptual models to guide research and practice. BMC Pediatr. 2004;4:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The World Health Organisation (WHO). International statistical classification of disases and related health problems 10th revision (ICD-10). Geneva: WHO; 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Disability in Australia: intellectual disability, Bulletin 67. Canberra: Australian Government, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goddard L, Davidson PM, Daly J, et al. People with an intellectual disability in the discourse of chronic and complex conditions: an invisible group? Austral Health Rev. 2008;32:405–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doran CM, Einfeld SL, Madden RH, et al. How much does intellectual disability really cost? First estimates for Australia. J Intell Dev Disab. 2012;37:42–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chia YH, Lunsky Y. Dual diagnosis and access to services. J Dev Disab. 2003;10:79–82.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGill P, Papachristoforou E, Cooper V. Support for family carers of children and young people with developmental disabilities and challenging behaviour. Child Care Health Dev. 2006;32:159–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kenny K, McGilloway S. Caring for children with learning disabilities: an exploratory study of parental strain and coping. Br J Learn Disabil. 2007;35:221–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van den Berg B, Al M, Brouwer W, et al. Economic valuation of informal care: the conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:1342–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van den Berg B, Al M, Van Exel J, et al. Economic valuation of informal care: conjoint analysis applied in a heterogeneous population of informal caregivers. Value Health. 2008;11:1041–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mentzakis E, Ryan M, McNamee P. Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity. Health Econ. 2011;20:930–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van den Berg B, Bleichrodt H, Eeckhoudt L. The economic value of informal care: a study of informal caregivers’ and patients’ willingness to pay and willingness to accept for informal care. Health Econ. 2005;14:363–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Australian Government Fair Work Commission. Annual wage review 2012–2013. C2013/1. Canberra, 2013.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Employee earnings and hours, Australia, 2010. Canberra, 2011.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Wage Price Index, Australia, Cat 6345.0. Canberra, 2013.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coast J, Flynn T, Salisbury C, et al. Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5:249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, et al. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29:393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Einfeld SL, Tonge BJ. Manual for the developmental behaviour checklist. 2nd ed. Primary Carer Version and Teacher Version: University of New South Wales and Monash University; 2002.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carers Australia. The economic value of informal care in Australia in 2015. Canberra, 2015.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2009;12:354–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Health Economics Research and EvaluationUniversity of Technology SydneyBroadwayAustralia
  2. 2.Brain and Mind Centre, University of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations