Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42225371›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

The benefits and costs of domiciliary care: a study protocol for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary care in England.

Florin Vadean, Georgios Mamolis, Stacey Rand, Katerina Gousia, Hansel Teo, Sarah Birch, Anica Alvarez Nishio, Ann-Marie Towers, Stephen Allan, Robin Darton and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

16 authors.

Florin VadeanCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Georgios MamolisCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK g.mamolis@kent.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8114-2152
Stacey RandCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9071-2842
Katerina GousiaCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Hansel TeoCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Sarah BirchCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Anica Alvarez NishioUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Ann-Marie TowersHealth and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3597-1061
Stephen AllanCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1208-9837
Robin DartonCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Freddie GregoryIpsos UK, London, UK.
Claire LambertIpsos UK, London, UK.
Will FentonSkills for Care Ltd, Leeds, UK.
Sarah DavisonSkills for Care Ltd, Leeds, UK.
Amanda RobertsCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Olena NizalovaCare and Outcomes Research Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCare provided in people's own homes (domiciliary care) is an increasingly important part of long-term care. There are various services, including home visits, live-in care and housing with care. Some people directly employ care staff, called personal assistants. Services vary in quality, price and availability, and there is currently little evidence of the value these services provide to the public purse and individuals. This study protocol presents planned research to fill this important gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a cross-sectional study based on surveys of care recipients, their unpaid carers as well as formal care providers. In the first half of 2026, we will survey 1850 people accessing domiciliary care either through a homecare agency, a housing with care scheme or by directly employing personal assistants and 400 unpaid carers, all based in England. We will conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis taking a 'production function' approach and use quality of life as measured by the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit as the main outcome of interest. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval from the School of Social Sciences Staff Review Committee at the University of Kent on 20 May 2025 (reference 1195) and the Health Research Authority, London-Camberwell St Giles Research Ethics Committee on 28 October 2025 (reference 25/LO/0652). Implications around consent, data protection and confidentiality, risk and participant payment are discussed. In addition to academic outputs (eg, academic articles, conference presentations), we aim to coproduce news items and blogs with people with lived experience of accessing long-term care and jointly present findings at events aimed at the care sector. Moreover, we will offer participating care providers benchmarking briefs based on our findings.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesCaregiversCost-Effectiveness AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandHumansQuality of LifeResearch DesignHealth economicsHealth policyQuality of LifeSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42225371
PMCPMC13239640

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.