4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring costs, cost components, and associated factors among people with dementia approaching the end of life: A systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Understanding costs of care for people dying with dementia is essential to guide service development, but information has not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to understand (1) which cost components have been measured in studies reporting the costs of care in people with dementia approaching the end of life, (2) what the costs are and how they change closer to death, and (3) which factors are associated with these costs.

          Methods

          We searched the electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, EconLit, and Embase and reference lists of included studies. We included any type of study published between 1999 and 2019, in any language, reporting primary data on costs of health care in individuals with dementia approaching the end of life. Two independent reviewers screened all full‐text articles. We used the Evers' Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist to appraise the risk of bias of included studies.

          Results

          We identified 2843 articles after removing duplicates; 19 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 16 were from the United States. Only two studies measured informal costs including out‐of‐pocket expenses and informal caregiving. The monthly total direct cost of care rose toward death, from $1787 to $2999 USD in the last 12 months, to $4570 to $11921 USD in the last month of life. Female sex, Black ethnicity, higher educational background, more comorbidities, and greater cognitive impairment were associated with higher costs.

          Discussion

          Costs of dementia care rise closer to death. Informal costs of care are high but infrequently included in analyses. Research exploring the costs of care for people with dementia by proximity to death, including informal care costs and from outside the United States, is urgently needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global, regional, and national burden of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

          Summary Background The number of individuals living with dementia is increasing, negatively affecting families, communities, and health-care systems around the world. A successful response to these challenges requires an accurate understanding of the dementia disease burden. We aimed to present the first detailed analysis of the global prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of dementia as captured by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016, and highlight the most important messages for clinicians and neurologists. Methods GBD 2016 obtained data on dementia from vital registration systems, published scientific literature and surveys, and data from health-service encounters on deaths, excess mortality, prevalence, and incidence from 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016, through systematic review and additional data-seeking efforts. To correct for differences in cause of death coding across time and locations, we modelled mortality due to dementia using prevalence data and estimates of excess mortality derived from countries that were most likely to code deaths to dementia relative to prevalence. Data were analysed by standardised methods to estimate deaths, prevalence, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; computed as the sum of YLLs and YLDs), and the fractions of these metrics that were attributable to four risk factors that met GBD criteria for assessment (high body-mass index [BMI], high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a diet high in sugar-sweetened beverages). Findings In 2016, the global number of individuals who lived with dementia was 43·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 37·8–51·0), increased from 20.2 million (17·4–23·5) in 1990. This increase of 117% (95% UI 114–121) contrasted with a minor increase in age-standardised prevalence of 1·7% (1·0–2·4), from 701 cases (95% UI 602–815) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 712 cases (614–828) per 100 000 population in 2016. More women than men had dementia in 2016 (27·0 million, 95% UI 23·3–31·4, vs 16.8 million, 14.4–19.6), and dementia was the fifth leading cause of death globally, accounting for 2·4 million (95% UI 2·1–2·8) deaths. Overall, 28·8 million (95% UI 24·5–34·0) DALYs were attributed to dementia; 6·4 million (95% UI 3·4–10·5) of these could be attributed to the modifiable GBD risk factors of high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages. Interpretation The global number of people living with dementia more than doubled from 1990 to 2016, mainly due to increases in population ageing and growth. Although differences in coding for causes of death and the heterogeneity in case-ascertainment methods constitute major challenges to the estimation of the burden of dementia, future analyses should improve on the methods for the correction of these biases. Until breakthroughs are made in prevention or curative treatment, dementia will constitute an increasing challenge to health-care systems worldwide. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.

            The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard. The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel. The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items. There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cost-of-illness analysis. What room in health economics?

              Cost-of-illness (COI) was the first economic evaluation technique used in the health field. The principal aim was to measure the economic burden of illness to society. Its usefulness as a decision-making tool has however been questioned since its inception. The main criticism came from welfare economists who rejected COIs because they were not grounded in welfare economics theory. Other attacks related to the use of the human capital approach (HCA) to evaluate morbidity and mortality costs since it was said that the HCA had nothing to do with the value people attach to their lives. Finally, objections were made that COI could not be of any help to decision makers and that other forms of economic evaluation (e.g. cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis) would be much more useful to those taking decisions and ranking priorities. Conversely, it is here suggested that COI can be a good economic tool to inform decision makers if it is considered from another perspective. COI is a descriptive study that can provide information to support the political process as well as the management functions at different levels of the healthcare organisations. To do that, the design of the study must be innovative, capable of measuring the true cost to society; to estimate the main cost components and their incidence over total costs; to envisage the different subjects who bear the costs; to identify the actual clinical management of illness; and to explain cost variability. In order to reach these goals, COI need to be designed as observational bottom-up studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                javiera.martelli@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Alzheimers Dement (N Y)
                Alzheimers Dement (N Y)
                10.1002/(ISSN)2352-8737
                TRC2
                Alzheimer's & Dementia : Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2352-8737
                14 September 2021
                2021
                : 7
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/trc2.v7.1 )
                : e12198
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation King's College London London UK
                [ 2 ] School of Medical Education Faculty of Life Science and Medicine King's College London London UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Javiera Leniz, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London SE5 9PJ, UK.

                E‐mail: javiera.martelli@ 123456kcl.ac.uk

                Article
                TRC212198
                10.1002/trc2.12198
                8438684
                34541291
                4385d5e5-eb83-4e20-bcf1-4097fae92b95
                © 2021 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 26 April 2021
                : 20 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 12, Words: 7409
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.0.7 mode:remove_FC converted:14.09.2021

                alzheimer's disease,cost of care,cost of illness,dementia,end‐of‐life,health care cost,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article