Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Dementia Care Mapping and Patient-Centred Care in Australian residential homes: An economic evaluation of the CARE Study, CHERE Working Paper 2008/4

Contents:

Author Info

  • Richard Norman

    ()
    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Marion Haas

    ()
    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Lyn Chenoweth
  • Yun-Hee Jeon
  • Madeleine King
  • Henry Brodaty
  • Jane Stein-Parbury
  • Georgina Luscombe

Abstract

Background: As the population ages, the incidence of dementia and its burden on society will increase. The economic costs of dementia are high, particularly for persons in the mid and late stages of the disease, when formal care arrangements such as nursing home placement are required. The need for care is often precipitated by the development of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) which also severely affect the quality of life of affected persons and their carers The Caring for Aged-Care REsident Study (CARES), the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) and Person Centred Care (PCC), demonstrated that either of the two interventions improved outcomes compared to Usual Care (UC) on the primary outcome measure, the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). This study reports the results of an economic evaluation which was undertaken in conjunction with the trial. This information will provide additional information to assist policy makers in making choices between competing options. Methods: Fifteen nursing homes were randomised to one of three conditions: DCM, PCC or Usual Care (UC). The sample consisted of 360 residents with dementia. Data were collected at baseline, three months, and eight months by assessors blind to group assignment. In addition to the CMAI, data were collected about the use and costs of health care resources and pharmacological interventions. Total costs associated with each of the interventions were estimated, which were contrasted with the outcomes using standard health economics methodology. Results: Over one year, the cost per residential setting of implementing DCM and PCC relative to UC was $10,034 and $2,250 respectively. The additional cost per resident-level unit improvement in CMAI post-intervention (at follow-up) relative to UC was $48.95 ($46.89) for DCM and $8.01 ($6.43) for PCC. Compared to DCM, PCC produced a greater reduction in anxiety and agitation at a lower cost. Therefore, DCM was dominated by PCC and removed from the economic evaluation. Sensitivity analysis suggests this result is robust to changing model parameters. Conclusions: PCC provides a greater decrease in agitation and related behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, compared with DCM, at a lower cost and is the preferred option for cost-effectiveness. While there is no existing standard for a reasonable cost for a point improvement in CMAI, the cost per unit under PCC seems acceptable.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2008_4.pdf
File Function: First version, June 2008
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney in its series Working Papers with number 2008/4.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Jun 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2008/4

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Level 4, 645 Harris Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007
Phone: +61 2 9514 9799
Fax: 61 2 9514 4730
Email:
Web page: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Dementia; patient centred care;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2008/4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Liz Chinchen).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.