IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v390y2026ics0277953625010937.html

A scoping review of preference-based instruments for measuring carer outcomes in economic evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • McCaffrey, Nikki
  • Engel, Lidia
  • Karnon, Benjamin
  • Ratcliffe, Julie
  • Hoefman, Renske
  • Rand, Stacey
  • Al-Janabi, Hareth
  • Currow, David
  • Frith, Madison
  • Hutchinson, Claire

Abstract

Carer-specific preference-based instruments have been developed to capture outcomes for economic evaluations but the body of evidence has yet to be collated to guide instrument selection and identify knowledge gaps for future research. This scoping review aimed to identify carer-related, preference-based instruments and summarise and assess their performance, valuation and application. Nine databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane, DARE, Econlit, EMBASE, iHTA, PsychINFO, Pubmed) were searched until 28th May 2025 to identify peer-reviewed, English-language articles about the development, validation, valuation and application of preference-based, carer-related instruments. Study characteristics, instrument descriptions, psychometric properties and valuation information were extracted. The body of evidence and reporting quality were assessed using CREATE and the ISOQOL minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures. In total, 140 included articles reported on five instruments: the ASCOT-Carer; the CarerQol; the CES; the ICECAP-CPM; and the SIDECAR. All carer-specific, preference-based instruments have rigorously developed scoring algorithms, albeit for differing numbers of countries. All of the instruments, except the ICECAP-CPM, have some evidence of psychometric validity in varied populations, though information on responsiveness is limited. Broadly, the CarerQol, the longest established instrument, is the most widely validated, followed by the ASCOT-Carer and CES. The SIDECAR and ICECAP-CPM require further testing. The CarerQol has the most evidence for use in carers of children, the ASCOT-Carer for adult social care settings, the CarerQoL and CES for the palliative care setting, and the ASCOT-Carer, CarerQoL, and CES for mental illness, rheumatoid arthritis, long-term care, and dementia. The CarerQol, CES and ASCOT-Carer represent the most widely used instruments for measuring carer-related outcomes in economic evaluations. The review findings assist with selecting instruments for studies alongside research objectives, population and settings. Future research should explore the responsiveness of these instruments, validate them in different countries and carer populations, and develop country-specific scoring algorithms.

Suggested Citation

  • McCaffrey, Nikki & Engel, Lidia & Karnon, Benjamin & Ratcliffe, Julie & Hoefman, Renske & Rand, Stacey & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Currow, David & Frith, Madison & Hutchinson, Claire, 2026. "A scoping review of preference-based instruments for measuring carer outcomes in economic evaluations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 390(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:390:y:2026:i:c:s0277953625010937
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625010937
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118762?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:390:y:2026:i:c:s0277953625010937. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.