ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Does the Informal Carer Identification Method Matter? Evidence from Self-Declaration and Time Diary Approaches.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesImpacts on informal carers are increasingly being incorporated into cost-of-illness and cost-effectiveness analyses. However, little is known about whether the method used to identify carers affects the estimated impacts. We compare a novel time diary technique to a common self-declaration question for identifying carers. We investigate whether it: (1) detects more and different carers, and (2) if carers across identification techniques have different mental health outcomes.
methodsWe use the Innovation Panel component of the UK Household Longitudinal Study, which records all activities performed in two 24-h periods and contains a rich set of individual characteristics. We use regression analysis to compare the number and characteristics of carers identified across the two methods. We then use the doubly robust approach of entropy balancing combined with regression adjustment to estimate the mental health impacts of caregiving across both methods.
resultsAmong 1055 individuals, we identify 261 carers by at least one method. The self-declaration method fails to classify 16% of individuals identified as carers through time diary data. We find that carers identified by the time diary have a 1.24 (p < 0.05) higher score on the 36-point General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) scale in the subsequent survey wave compared with similar non-carers. For self-declared carers, the estimated difference in GHQ score is 0.36 (p > 0.1), a smaller and statistically non-significant association compared with that observed among time diary-identified carers
conclusionsThe mental health impacts of caregiving may be underestimated when carers are identified by self-declaration. Supplementing self-declaration with time diaries may offer a means of including more carers. Future research, if only one method is applied, should more carefully consider the means of identifying informal carers and the implications that the use of one method may have on conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40380036What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.