Health economics research into supporting carers of people with dementia: A systematic review of outcome measures

Advisory bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK, advocate using preference based instruments to measure the quality of life (QoL) component of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Cost per QALY is used to determine cost-effectiveness, and hence funding, of interventions. QALYs allow policy makers to compare the effects of different interventions across different patient groups. Generic measures may not be sensitive enough to fully capture the QoL effects for certain populations, such as carers, so there is a need to consider additional outcome measures, which are preference based where possible to enable cost-effectiveness analysis to be undertaken. This paper reviews outcome measures commonly used in health services research and health economics research involving carers of people with dementia. An electronic database search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included an outcome measure for carers of people with dementia. 2262 articles were identified. 455 articles describing 361 studies remained after exclusion criteria were applied. 228 outcome measures were extracted from the studies. Measures were categorised into 44 burden measures, 43 mastery measures, 61 mood measures, 32 QoL measures, 27 social support and relationships measures and 21 staff competency and morale measures. The choice of instrument has implications on funding decisions; therefore, researchers need to choose appropriate instruments for the population being measured and the type of intervention undertaken. If an instrument is not sensitive enough to detect changes in certain populations, the effect of an intervention may be underestimated, and hence interventions which may appear to be beneficial to participants are not deemed cost-effective and are not funded. If this is the case, it is essential that additional outcome measures which detect changes in broader QoL are included, whilst still retaining preference based utility measures such as EQ-5D to allow QALY calculation for comparability with other interventions

Qualitative Exploration of the Suitability of Capability Based Instruments to Measure Quality of Life in Family Carers of People with Dementia

Background. In an ageing population, many individuals find themselves becoming a carer for an elderly relative. This qualitative study explores aspects of quality of life affected by caring for a person with dementia, with the aim of identifying whether capability based questionnaires are suitable for measuring carer quality of life. Methods. Semistructured interviews lasting up to an hour were conducted, November 2010-July 2011, with eight family carers of people with dementia. Interviews typically took place at the participants' homes and were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework analysis was used to code and analyse data. Domains from three capability based questionnaires (ICECAP-O, Carer Experience Scale, and ASCOT) were used as initial codes. Similar codes were grouped into categories, and broader themes were developed from these categories. Results. Four themes were identified: social network and relationships; interactions with agencies; recognition of role; and time for oneself. Conclusions. By identifying what affects carers' quality of life, an appropriate choice can be made when selecting instruments for future carer research. The themes identified had a high degree of overlap with the capability instruments, suggesting that the capabilities approach would be suitable for future research involving carers of people with dementia

The AgeWell study of behavior change to promote health and wellbeing in later life: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

This is the final version of the article. Available from Biomed Central via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Lifestyle factors playing a role in the development of late-life disability may be modifiable. There is a need for robust evidence about the potential for prevention of disability through behavior change interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: This feasibility study involves the development, implementation and initial testing of a behavior change intervention in a naturalistic setting. A small-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) will investigate the implementation of a goal-setting intervention aimed at promoting behavior change in the domains of physical and cognitive activity in the context of a community resource center for over-50s. Healthy older participants attending the center (n = 75) will be randomized to one of three conditions: control (an interview involving a general discussion about the center); goal-setting (an interview involving identification of up to five personal goals in the domains of physical activity, cognitive activity, diet and health, and social engagement); or goal-setting with mentoring (the goal-setting interview followed by bi-monthly telephone mentoring). All participants will be reassessed after 12 months. Primary outcomes are levels of physical and cognitive activity. Secondary outcomes address psychosocial (self-efficacy, mood, quality of life), cognitive (memory and executive function), and physical fitness (functional and metabolic) domains. Cost-effectiveness will also be examined. DISCUSSION: This study will provide information about the feasibility of a community-based lifestyle intervention model for over-50s and of the implementation of a goal-setting intervention for behavior change, together with initial evidence about the short-term effects of goal-setting on behavior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30080637 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).This study is funded by the Medical Research Council (UK) through the Lifelong Health and Well-being programme. The funder plays no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Professors Carol Brayne, Martin Knapp, Mike Martin, and Robin Morris advised on and critically reviewed the study proposal. John Clifford Jones, Maldwyn Roberts, and Stephen Williams of Age Cymru Gwynedd a Môn are responsible for setting up and managing the Nefyn AgeWell Centre. Julie Nixon is conducting the interviews and Jennifer Cooney is contributing to data collection. Anne Krayer will collect and analyze qualitative data for the biographical narrative analysis. Blood samples are analyzed by NHS laboratory staff at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor. Sources of funding for each author are as follows: LC: Higher Education Funding Council for Wales; JVH: National Health Service/ Welsh Assembly Government; IRJ: Higher Education Funding Council for Wales; SMN: Medical Research Council grant; JT: Higher Education Funding Council for Wales; CJW: Welsh Assembly Government

Self- and Carer-Rated Pain in People with Dementia: Influences of Pain in Carers

Although pain is frequent in people with dementia (PwD), evidence on the prevalence and factors influencing ratings of pain in dementia is limited. Carer variables are often associated with bias in proxy ratings of pain, but few studies have examined the role of caregiver pain in influencing these ratings

Dementia and Imagination: a mixed-methods protocol for arts and science research

ABSTRACT Introduction: Dementia and Imagination is a multidisciplinary research collaboration bringing together arts and science to address current evidence limitations around the benefits of visual art activities in dementia care. The research questions ask: Can art improve quality of life and well-being? If it does make a difference, how does it do this-and why? Does it have wider social and community benefits? Methods and analysis: This mixed-methods study recruits participants from residential care homes, National Health Service (NHS) wards and communities in England and Wales. A visual art intervention is developed and delivered as 1×2-hour weekly group session for 3 months in care and community settings to N=100 people living with dementia. Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at 3 time points to examine the impact on their quality of life, and the perceptions of those who care for them (N=100 family and professional carers). Repeated-measures systematic observations of well-being are obtained during the intervention (intervention vs control condition). The health economics component conducts a social return on investment evaluation of the intervention. Qualitative data are collected at 3 time points (n=35 carers/staff and n=35 people living with dementia) to explore changes in social connectedness. Self-reported outcomes of the intervention delivery are obtained (n=100). Focus groups with intervention participants (n=40) explore perceptions of impact. Social network analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from arts and healthcare professionals (N=100) examines changes in perceptions and practice. Ethics and dissemination: The study is approved by North Wales Research Ethics Committee-West. A range of activities will share the research findings, including international and national academic conferences, quarterly newsletters and the project website. Public engagement projects will target a broad range of stakeholders. Policy and practice summaries will be developed. The visual art intervention protocol will be developed as a freely available practitioners guide

EnDPoINT: protocol for an implementation research study to integrate a holistic package of physical health, mental health and psychosocial care for podoconiosis, lymphatic filariasis and leprosy into routine health services in Ethiopia

Introduction Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) causing lower limb lymphoedema such as podoconiosis, lymphatic filariasis (LF) and leprosy are common in Ethiopia. Routine health services for morbidity management and disability prevention (MMDP) of lymphoedema caused by these conditions are still lacking, even though it imposes a huge burden on affected individuals and their communities in terms of physical and mental health, and psychosocial and economic outcomes. This calls for an integrated, holistic approach to MMDP across these three diseases. Methods and analysis The ‘Excellence in Disability Prevention Integrated across NTDs’ (EnDPoINT) implementation research study aims to assess the integration and scale-up of a holistic package of care—including physical health, mental health and psychosocial care—into routine health services for people with lymphoedema caused by podoconiosis, LF and leprosy in selected districts in Awi zone in the North–West of Ethiopia. The study is being carried out over three phases using a wide range of mixed methodologies. Phase 1 involves the development of a comprehensive holistic care package and strategies for its integration into the routine health services across the three diseases, and to examine the factors that influence integration and the roles of key health system actors. Phase 2 involves a pilot study conducted in one subdistrict in Awi zone, to establish the care package’s adoption, feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, potential effectiveness, its readiness for scale-up, costs of the interventions and the suitability of the training and training materials. Phase 3 involves scale-up of the care package in three whole districts, as well as its evaluation in regard to coverage, implementation, clinical (physical health, mental health and psychosocial) and economic outcomes. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval for the study has been obtained in the UK and Ethiopia. The results will be disseminated through publications in scientific journals, conference presentations, policy briefs and workshops. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made

'The mum has to live with the decision much more than the dad'; a qualitative study of men's perceptions of their influence on breastfeeding decision-making

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Although breastfeeding is widely acknowledged as the normal method of infant feeding, there are large variations in rates of initiation and duration. Several factors are linked to the likelihood of breastfeeding initiation, including the influence and opinion of the child's father. There is limited research into men's perception of their influence, or if they feel it appropriate to be involved in deciding how to feed their children. The aim of this study was to investigate, using a qualitative methodology, fathers' perceptions of their influence on the decision to feed their child breastmilk or formula. Methods: Six men were recruited through Children's Centres in Bristol, United Kingdom, and a phenomenological research methodology implemented using semi-structured interviews. Specific objectives were: to understand participants' views on breastfeeding; understand if and how these views were discussed with their partner; to determine if participants believed involvement in the feeding decision is appropriate; to understand how they felt about the decision made; and to see if their views changed after the birth of their child. Results: Multiple themes emerged during analysis, including deferring of responsibility to the mother; breastfeeding as normal practice; change in attitude; involvement in parenting; and, advantages for the father. The men in the study accepted breastfeeding as normal behaviour, probably because of their upbringing in households where breastfeeding was practiced. There was consensus that women had more say in deciding to breastfeed, which was explained as a consequence of their greater involvement. It could also be interpreted as an unwillingness to interfere in an area perceived as 'owned' by women. Participants acknowledged that breastfeeding was more difficult than they had perceived. Conclusions: The key themes emerging from the interviews are suggestive of an impact on breastfeeding interventions that use the father as an intermediary. If they do not feel that they are 'permitted' to comment on their partner's breastfeeding, then simply increasing knowledge of breastfeeding benefits in these men is likely to have minimal impact

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT

Background Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period. Objective The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Design This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Setting The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018. Participants A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial. Interventions The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of –5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years. Results The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows – ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval –2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference –1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval –6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was –3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval –8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means –1.8, 95% confidence interval –2.9 to –0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis. Conclusion The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered. Future work To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family carers: pragmatic eight-centre randomised trial of joint reminiscence and maintenance versus usual treatment: a protocol

The growing number of people with dementia, and the increasing cost of care, provides a major incentive to develop and test methods of supporting them in the community for longer. Most attention has been given to pharmacological interventions, but there is increasing recognition that psychosocial interventions may be equally effective, even preferable where medication has negative side-effects. Reminiscence groups, run by professionals and volunteers, which use photographs, recordings and other objects to trigger personal memories are probably the most popular therapeutic approach to working with people with dementia, but there is little evidence for their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The recent inclusion of family carers in groups with people with dementia, notably in our own pilot studies, has generated informal evidence that this joint approach improves relationships between people with dementia and their carers, and benefits both

Validation of the Spanish Version of the ICECAP-O for Nursing Home Residents with Dementia

Background Measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important for a chronic disease, such as dementia, which impairs the quality of life of affected patients in addition to their length of life. This is important in the context of economic evaluations when interventions do not (only) affect HRQoL and these other factors also affect overall quality of life. Objective To validate the Spanish translation of the ICECAP-O's capability to measure Health-related quality of life in elderly with dementia who live in nursing homes. Method Cross-sectional study. For 217 residents living in 8 Spanish nursing homes, questionnaires were completed by nursing professionals serving as proxy respondents. We analyzed the internal consistency and other psychometric properties. We investigated the convergent validity of the ICECAP-O with other HRQoL instruments, the EQ-5D extended with a cognitive dimension (EQ-5D+C), the Alzheimer's Disease Related Quality of Life (ADRQL) measures, and the Barthel Index measure of activities of daily living (ADL). Results The ICECAP-O presents satisfactory internal consistency (alpha 0.820). The factorial analysis indicated a structure of five principal dimensions that explain 66.57% of the total variance. Convergent validity between the ICECAP-O, EQ-5D+C, ADRQL, and Barthel Index scores was moderate to good (with correlations of 0.62, 0.61, and 0.68, respectively), but differed between dimensions of the instruments. Discriminant validity was confirmed by finding differences in ICECAP-O scores between subgroups based on ADL scores (0.70 low, 0.59 medium, and 0.39 high level care), dementia severity (0.72 mild, 0.63 medium, and 0.50 severe), and ages (0.59 below 75 years and 0.84 above 75 years). Conclusions This study presented the first use of a Spanish version of the ICECAP-O. The results indicate that the ICECAP-O appears to be a reliable Health-related quality of life measurement instrument showing good convergent and discriminant validity for people with dementia