The value of dementia care towards the end of life-A contingent valuation study

A Contingent Valuation Study for Use in Valuing Public Goods with Health Externalities: The Case of Street Pianos

BACKGROUND

Clinical healthcare is not the only way to improve an individual's health. Community-based interventions can have health and wellbeing impacts as well; however, the nature of these interventions, which have public good characteristics, poses challenges for the typical ways in which we value outcomes for use in (health) economic evaluations. The approaches to valuation of these type of interventions should allow for the incorporation of all types of values including option value, externalities and individual use-value.

OBJECTIVE

This is a feasibility study with the objective to re-consider the importance of health externalities when valuing public health interventions that are treated as public goods from an economic perspective.

METHODS

A contingent valuation (CV) survey was designed to elicit individual willingness to pay (WTP) for the public piano programme (PPP). Five different scenarios were designed; three scenarios focussed on individual use-value, while the other two (scenarios 4 and 5) covered option values and externalities. An online survey was conducted with a sample of 105 people.

RESULTS

Preferences differed across the different scenarios. The mean WTP for scenario 1 was £0.81, for scenario 2 £3.65, for scenario 3 £3.07, for scenario 4 £7.26 and for scenario 5 £6.02. The WTP results for each scenario are presented and discussed regarding the nature of the good, user and non-user perspectives, payment vehicles and individual characteristics.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence that all types of use are necessary for inclusion in an economic evaluation, especially when the good in question is a public good where its benefits can be obtained from all community members.

Methodological challenges and potential solutions for economic evaluations of palliative and end-of-life care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Given the increasing demand for palliative and end-of-life care, along with the introduction of costly new treatments, there is a pressing need for robust evidence on value. However, comprehensive guidance is missing on methods for conducting economic evaluations in this field.

AIM

To identify and summarise existing information on methodological challenges and potential solutions/recommendations for economic evaluations of palliative and end-of-life care.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review of publications on methodological considerations for economic evaluations of adult palliative and end-of-life care as per our PROSPERO protocol CRD42020148160. Following initial searches, we conducted a two-stage screening process and quality appraisal. Information was thematically synthesised, coded, categorised into common themes and aligned with the items specified in the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement.

DATA SOURCES

The databases Medline, Embase, HTADatabase, NHSEED and grey literature were searched between 1 January 1999 and 5 June 2023.

RESULTS

Out of the initial 6502 studies, 81 were deemed eligible. Identified challenges could be grouped into nine themes: ambiguous and inaccurate patient identification, restricted generalisability due to poor geographic transferability of evidence, narrow costing perspective applied, difficulties defining comparators, consequences of applied time horizon, ambiguity in the selection of outcomes, challenged outcome measurement, non-standardised measurement and valuation of costs as well as challenges regarding a reliable preference-based outcome valuation.

CONCLUSION

Our review offers a comprehensive context-specific overview of methodological considerations for economic evaluations of palliative and end-of-life care. It also identifies the main knowledge gaps to help prioritise future methodological research specifically for this field.

A Systematic Review of the Indirect and Social Costs in Early and Young Onset Dementias

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization has estimated that worldwide around 50 million people have dementia. The World Alzheimer Report estimated that between 2 and 10% of all cases of dementia begin before the age of 65. Early and young onset dementias (EYOD) provoke more working, social, family, and economic consequences than late onset dementias. All general studies about costs of dementias show that most of them are indirect or social costs. Despite that, very few studies have been performed in EYOD.

OBJECTIVE

To do a systematic review of literature about indirect or social costs in EYOD to know the state of knowledge and to discover gaps that should be filled.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in the main database: Scopus, PsychInfo, Web of Science (Web of Science Core Collection, Medline and SciELO), and CINAHL. Additionally, we looked for reviews in Cochrane and in the International Prospective Register Of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

RESULTS

Most of the studies are about costs of dementias in general, but they do no differentiate costs for the case of EYOD. Many studies highlight the increased costs for EYOD but very little included evidence of that. 135 papers were selected. Finally, only two were studies providing data. EYOD reduce the odds to get or maintain a job. Most of the care is provided by informal caregivers. The costs in EYOD are 39.26% higher among EYOD than in late onset.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of studies about social and indirect costs in EYOD. More evidence is needed.

Supporting good quality, community-based end-of-life care for people living with dementia: the SEED research programme including feasibility RCT

Background

In the UK, most people with dementia die in the community and they often receive poorer end-of-life care than people with cancer.

Objective

The overall aim of this programme was to support professionals to deliver good-quality, community-based care towards, and at, the end of life for people living with dementia and their families.

Design

The Supporting Excellence in End-of-life care in Dementia (SEED) programme comprised six interlinked workstreams. Workstream 1 examined existing guidance and outcome measures using systematic reviews, identified good practice through a national e-survey and explored outcomes of end-of-life care valued by people with dementia and family carers (n = 57) using a Q-sort study. Workstream 2 explored good-quality end-of-life care in dementia from the perspectives of a range of stakeholders using qualitative methods (119 interviews, 12 focus groups and 256 observation hours). Using data from workstreams 1 and 2, workstream 3 used co-design methods with key stakeholders to develop the SEED intervention. Worksteam 4 was a pilot study of the SEED intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Using a cluster design, we assessed the feasibility and acceptability of recruitment and retention, outcome measures and our intervention. Four general practices were recruited in North East England: two were allocated to the intervention and two provided usual care. Patient recruitment was via general practitioner dementia registers. Outcome data were collected at baseline, 4, 8 and 12 months. Workstream 5 involved economic modelling studies that assessed the potential value of the SEED intervention using a contingent valuation survey of the general public (n = 1002). These data informed an economic decision model to explore how the SEED intervention might influence care. Results of the model were presented in terms of the costs and consequences (e.g. hospitalisations) and, using the contingent valuation data, a cost–benefit analysis. Workstream 6 examined commissioning of end-of-life care in dementia through a narrative review of policy and practice literature, combined with indepth interviews with a national sample of service commissioners (n = 20).

Setting

The workstream 1 survey and workstream 2 included services throughout England. The workstream 1 Q-sort study and workstream 4 pilot trial took place in North East England. For workstream 4, four general practices were recruited; two received the intervention and two provided usual care.

Results

Currently, dementia care and end-of-life care are commissioned separately, with commissioners receiving little formal guidance and training. Examples of good practice rely on non-recurrent funding and leadership from an interested clinician. Seven key components are required for good end-of-life care in dementia: timely planning discussions, recognising end of life and providing supportive care, co-ordinating care, effective working with primary care, managing hospitalisation, continuing care after death, and valuing staff and ongoing learning. Using co-design methods and the theory of change, the seven components were operationalised as a primary care-based, dementia nurse specialist intervention, with a care resource kit to help the dementia nurse specialist improve the knowledge of family and professional carers. The SEED intervention proved feasible and acceptable to all stakeholders, and being located in the general practice was considered beneficial. None of the outcome measures was suitable as the primary outcome for a future trial. The contingent valuation showed that the SEED intervention was valued, with a wider package of care valued more than selected features in isolation. The SEED intervention is unlikely to reduce costs, but this may be offset by the value placed on the SEED intervention by the general public.

Limitations

The biggest challenge to the successful delivery and completion of this research programme was translating the ‘theoretical’ complex intervention into practice in an ever-changing policy and service landscape at national and local levels. A major limitation for a future trial is the lack of a valid and relevant primary outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention that influences outcomes for both individuals and systems.

Conclusions

Although the dementia nurse specialist intervention was acceptable, feasible and integrated well with existing care, it is unlikely to reduce costs of care; however, it was highly valued by all stakeholders (professionals, people with dementia and their families) and has the potential to influence outcomes at both an individual and a systems level.

Future work

There is no plan to progress to a full randomised controlled trial of the SEED intervention in its current form. In view of new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence dementia guidance, which now recommends a care co-ordinator for all people with dementia, the feasibility of providing the SEED intervention throughout the illness trajectory should be explored. Appropriate outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of such a complex intervention are needed urgently.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21390601.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research, Vol. 8, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The value of dementia care towards the end of life-A contingent valuation study

OBJECTIVES

A dementia nurse specialist (DNS) is expected to improve the quality of care and support to people with dementia nearing, and at, the end of life (EoL) by facilitating some key features of care. The aim of this study was to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) values from the general public perspective, for the different levels of support that the DNS can provide.

METHODS

Contingent valuation methods were used to elicit the maximum WTP for scenarios describing different types of support provided by the DNS for EoL care in dementia. In a general population online survey, 1002 participants aged 18 years or more sampled from the United Kingdom provided valuations. Five scenarios were valued with mean WTP value calculated for each scenario along with the relationship between mean WTP and participant characteristics.

RESULTS

The mean WTP varied across scenarios with higher values for the scenarios offering more features. Participants with some experience of dementia were willing to pay more compared with those with no experience. WTP values were higher for high-income groups compared with the lowest income level (P < .05). There was no evidence to suggest that respondent characteristics such as age, gender, family size, health utility or education status influenced the WTP values.

CONCLUSION

The general population values the anticipated improvement in dementia care provided by a DNS. This study will help inform judgements on interventions to improve the quality of EoL care.