Identification and prioritisation of items for a draft participant-reported questionnaire to measure use of social care, informal care, aids and adaptations

Kirsty M. Garfield (), Gail A. Thornton, Samantha Husbands, Ailsa Cameron, William Hollingworth, Sian M. Noble, Paul Roy and Joanna C. Thorn
Additional contact information
Kirsty M. Garfield: University of Bristol
Gail A. Thornton: University of Bristol
Samantha Husbands: University of Bristol
Ailsa Cameron: University of Bristol
William Hollingworth: University of Bristol
Sian M. Noble: University of Bristol
Paul Roy: Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board
Joanna C. Thorn: University of Bristol

PharmacoEconomics - Open, 2024, vol. 8, issue 3, No 7, 443 pages

Abstract: Abstract Background Resource-use measurement is integral for assessing cost-effectiveness within trial-based economic evaluations. Methods for gathering resource-use data from participants are not well developed, with questionnaires typically produced for each trial and rarely validated. The healthcare module of a generic, modular resource-use measure, designed for collecting self-report resource-utilisation data, has recently been developed in the UK. The objective of this research is to identify and prioritise items for new, bolt-on modules, covering informal care, social care and personal expenses incurred due to health and care needs. Methods Identification and prioritisation, conducted between April and December 2021, involved a rapid review of questionnaires included in the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement and economic evaluations published from 2011 to 2021 to identify candidate items, an online survey of UK-based social care professionals to identify omitted social care items and focus groups with UK-based health economists and UK-based people who access social care services either for themselves or as carers to prioritise items. Results The review identified 203 items. Over half of the 24 survey respondents reported no missing items. Five academic health economists and four people who access social care services participated in focus groups. Feedback shaped the social and informal care modules and indicated that no specific personal expenses were essential to collect in all trials. Aids/adaptations were highlighted as costly personal expenses when relevant; therefore, the personal expenses module was narrowed to aids/adaptations only. Conclusion Draft informal care, social care and aids/adaptations modules were developed, ready for further testing.

Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6 Abstract (text/html)

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:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00479-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/41669

DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics - Open is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher Carswell

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