Economic valuation of informal care: Lessons from the application of the opportunity costs and proxy good methods
This paper reports the results of the application of the opportunity costs and proxy good methods to determine a monetary value of informal care. We developed a survey in which we asked informal caregivers in The Netherlands to indicate the different types of time forgone (paid work, unpaid work and leisure) in order to be able to provide care. Moreover, we asked informal caregivers how much time they spent on a list of 16 informal care tasks during the week before the interview. Data were obtained from surveys in two different populations: informal caregivers and their care recipients with stroke and with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A total of 218 care recipients with stroke and their primary informal caregivers completed a survey as well as 147 caregivers and their care recipients with RA. The measurement of care according to both methods is more problematic compared to the valuation. This is especially the case for the opportunity costs method and for the housework part in the proxy good method. More precise guidelines are necessary for the consistent application of both methods in order to ensure comparability of results and of economic evaluations of health care.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 62 (2006)
Issue (Month): 4 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:4:p:835-845. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.