Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Health 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 effec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al-Janabi, Hareth, Efstathiou, Nikolaos, McLoughlin, Carol, Calvert, Melanie, Oyebode, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8320027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34325700
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06742-4
_version_ 1783730567315980288
author Al-Janabi, Hareth
Efstathiou, Nikolaos
McLoughlin, Carol
Calvert, Melanie
Oyebode, Jan
author_facet Al-Janabi, Hareth
Efstathiou, Nikolaos
McLoughlin, Carol
Calvert, Melanie
Oyebode, Jan
author_sort Al-Janabi, Hareth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Health 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Participants 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06742-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8320027
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83200272021-07-30 The scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a UK-based Delphi study Al-Janabi, Hareth Efstathiou, Nikolaos McLoughlin, Carol Calvert, Melanie Oyebode, Jan BMC Health Serv Res Research BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Health 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Participants 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06742-4. BioMed Central 2021-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8320027/ /pubmed/34325700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06742-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Al-Janabi, Hareth
Efstathiou, Nikolaos
McLoughlin, Carol
Calvert, Melanie
Oyebode, Jan
The scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a UK-based Delphi study
title The scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a UK-based Delphi study
title_full The scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a UK-based Delphi study
title_fullStr The scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a UK-based Delphi study
title_full_unstemmed The scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a UK-based Delphi study
title_short The scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a UK-based Delphi study
title_sort scope of carer effects and their inclusion in decision-making: a uk-based delphi study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8320027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34325700
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06742-4
work_keys_str_mv AT aljanabihareth thescopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT efstathiounikolaos thescopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT mcloughlincarol thescopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT calvertmelanie thescopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT oyebodejan thescopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT aljanabihareth scopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT efstathiounikolaos scopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT mcloughlincarol scopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT calvertmelanie scopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy
AT oyebodejan scopeofcarereffectsandtheirinclusionindecisionmakingaukbaseddelphistudy