Does the Informal Carer Identification Method Matter? Evidence from Self-Declaration and Time Diary Approaches

Sean Urwin (), Charles Smith and Matt Sutton
Additional contact information
Sean Urwin: University of Manchester
Charles Smith: University of Manchester
Matt Sutton: University of Manchester

PharmacoEconomics, 2025, vol. 43, issue 8, No 8, 987-997

Abstract: Abstract Objectives Impacts on informal carers are increasingly being incorporated into cost-of-illness and cost-effectiveness analyses. However, little is known about whether the method used to identify carers affects the estimated impacts. We compare a novel time diary technique to a common self-declaration question for identifying carers. We investigate whether it: (1) detects more and different carers, and (2) if carers across identification techniques have different mental health outcomes. Methods We use the Innovation Panel component of the UK Household Longitudinal Study, which records all activities performed in two 24-h periods and contains a rich set of individual characteristics. We use regression analysis to compare the number and characteristics of carers identified across the two methods. We then use the doubly robust approach of entropy balancing combined with regression adjustment to estimate the mental health impacts of caregiving across both methods. Results Among 1055 individuals, we identify 261 carers by at least one method. The self-declaration method fails to classify 16% of individuals identified as carers through time diary data. We find that carers identified by the time diary have a 1.24 (p 0.1), a smaller and statistically non-significant association compared with that observed among time diary-identified carers Conclusions The mental health impacts of caregiving may be underestimated when carers are identified by self-declaration. Supplementing self-declaration with time diaries may offer a means of including more carers. Future research, if only one method is applied, should more carefully consider the means of identifying informal carers and the implications that the use of one method may have on conclusions.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-025-01506-y Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01506-y

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01506-y

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().