IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lunewp/2018_041.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Evaluation of Management of Dementia Patients - A Systematic Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Saha, Sanjib

    () (Health Economics Unit, Department of Clinical Science, Lund University)

  • Gerdtham, Ulf-G.

    () (Department of Economics, Lund University)

  • Toresson, Håkan

    () (Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Science, Lund University)

  • Minthon, Lennart

    () (Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Science, Lund University, Sweden)

  • Jarl, Johan

    () (Health Economics Unit, Department of Clinical Science, Lund University)

Abstract

Objective: The objective is to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations of the interventions for the management of dementia and Alzheimer patients in home, hospital or institutional care. Methods: A systematic search of published economic evaluation studies in English was conducted using specified key words in relevant databased and websites. Data extracted included methods and empirical evidence (costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) and we assessed if the conclusions made in terms of cost-effectiveness were supported by the reported evidence. The included studies were also assessed for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results: Twelve studies were identified and there was a considerable heterogeneity in methodological approaches, target populations, study time frames, and perspectives as well as types of interventions. Interventions for the management of dementia patients are in general, not cost-effective. Interventions at the community and home setting for managing both the dementia patients and caregivers on a large scale may have the potential to save societal resources. Conclusion: More effectiveness studies as well as good quality economic evaluations are required before implementation decisions on management strategies can be made based on cost-effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Management of Dementia Patients - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:41, Lund University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lunewp:2018_041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://project.nek.lu.se/publications/workpap/papers/wp18_41.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687, July.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    3. Marieke Krol & Jocé Papenburg & Job van Exel, 2015. "Does Including Informal Care in Economic Evaluations Matter? A Systematic Review of Inclusion and Impact of Informal Care in Cost-Effectiveness Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 123-135, February.
    4. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    6. Moodie, Marjory & Haby, Michelle & Wake, Melissa & Gold, Lisa & Carter, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effectiveness of a family-based GP-mediated intervention targeting overweight and moderately obese children," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 363-376, December.
    7. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 189-198, March.
    8. Catherine Milte & Ruth Walker & Mary Luszcz & Emily Lancsar & Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "How Important Is Health Status in Defining Quality of Life for Older People? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Older South Australians," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 73-84, February.
    9. Henry Glick, 2011. "Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 2)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 287-296, April.
    10. Tina Quasdorf & Christine Riesner & Martin Nikolaus Dichter & Olga Dortmann & Sabine Bartholomeyczik & Margareta Halek, 2017. "Implementing Dementia Care Mapping to develop person‐centred care: results of a process evaluation within the Leben‐QD II trial," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5-6), pages 751-765, March.
    11. Hareth Al-Janabi & Nikki McCaffrey & Julie Ratcliffe, 2013. "Carer Preferences in Economic Evaluation and Healthcare Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(4), pages 235-239, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dementia; nursing home care; community care; residential care; economic evaluation;

    JEL classification:

    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:lunewp:2018_041. 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: (David Edgerton). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/delunse.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.