Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39256323›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025

Comparison of Caregiver and General Population Preferences for Dependency-Related Health States.

Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, Antonio Sampayo

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Eva Rodríguez-MíguezECOBAS, Universidade de Vigo, GRIEE, 36310, Vigo, Spain. emiguez@uvigo.es.ORCID 0000-0002-7287-7894
Antonio SampayoECOBAS, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8667-4940

Funding

Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia ED431C2023/05Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades PID2020-118119GB-I00Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades RTI2018-099403-B-I00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe assess whether the preferences regarding dependency-related health states as stated by informal caregivers are aligned with those expressed by the general population.

methodsThe preferences of a sample of 139 Spanish informal caregivers of dependent patients are compared with those obtained via a sample of 312 persons, also from the Spanish general population. We assess 24 dependency states extracted from the DEP-6D using the time trade-off method. Descriptive statistics and regression methods are used to explore differences between the two samples.

resultsMean difference tests establish that, for all but one of the 24 states, there are no significant differences between the samples. The estimated mean values ranged from - 0.64 to 0.60 for the caregiver sample and from - 0.60 to 0.65 for the general population sample, with a correlation of 0.96. On average, the classification of states as better or worse than dead matched in both samples (except for one state). Regression models also show that sample type does not have a significant average impact. After we introduce interaction effects, only the most severe level of two dimensions, cognitive problems and housework, result in significant differences-with the caregiver sample reporting higher values for the former, and lower values for the latter.

conclusionCaregivers and the general population exhibit quite similar preferences concerning dependency-related health states. This suggests that the results of cost-utility analyses, and the resource allocation decisions based on them, would likewise not be significantly affected by the preferences used to generate the weighting algorithm.

Indexed as

CaregiversHealth StatusPatient PreferenceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSpainSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39256323
PMCPMC11729128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.