IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v8y2024i3d10.1007_s41669-024-00479-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsty M. Garfield & Gail A. Thornton & Samantha Husbands & Ailsa Cameron & William Hollingworth & Sian M. Noble & Paul Roy & Joanna C. Thorn, 2024. "Identification and prioritisation of items for a draft participant-reported questionnaire to measure use of social care, informal care, aids and adaptations," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 431-443, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00479-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6?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
    ---><---

    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:spr:pharmo:v:8:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00479-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.