Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34325700›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

The scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a UK-based Delphi study.

Hareth Al-Janabi, Nikolaos Efstathiou, Carol McLoughlin, Melanie Calvert, Jan Oyebode

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hareth Al-JanabiHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK. h.aljanabi@bham.ac.uk.
Nikolaos EfstathiouSchool of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Carol McLoughlinHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Melanie CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK.
Jan OyebodeCentre for Applied Dementia Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, Richmond Rd, BD7 1DP, Bradford, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research cdf-2015-08-025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveHealth and social care may affect unpaid (family) carers' health and wellbeing in addition to patients' lives. It is recommended that such impacts (carer effects) are considered in decision-making. However, the scope of carer effects and range of decisions where carer effects should be considered is uncertain. This study aimed to identify: (i) how different categories of healthcare and social care were perceived to impact on unpaid carers; and (ii) whether there was consensus about when carer effects should be formally considered in decision-making contexts.

methodsA two round, online Delphi study was conducted with 65 UK-based participants (unpaid carers, care professionals, and researchers) with expertise in dementia, mental health, and stroke. Participants considered two broad forms of 'interventions' (patient treatment and replacement care) and two broad forms of 'organisational change' (staffing and changes in timing/location of care). Participants assessed the likely impacts of these on unpaid carers and whether impacts should be considered in decision-making.

resultsParticipants predicted interventions and organisational changes would impact on multiple domains of unpaid carers' lives, with 'emotional health' the most likely outcome to be affected. Patient treatment and replacement care services ('interventions') were associated with positive impacts across all domains. Conversely, timing/location changes and staffing changes ('organisational changes') were perceived to have mixed and negative impacts. There was widespread support (80-81 %) for considering carer effects in research studies, funding decisions, and patient decision-making.

conclusionsThis study highlights a perception that carer effects are widespread and important to consider in economic evaluation and decision-making. It highlights the particular need to measure and value effects on carers' emotional health and the need to use a societal perspective to avoid cost shifting to unpaid carers when introducing interventions and making organisational changes.

Indexed as

CaregiversStrokeDelphi TechniqueHumansSocial SupportUnited KingdomDelphiEconomic evaluationInformal careMental health, dementiaStroke

Identifiers

PMID34325700
PMCPMC8320027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.