Costs of care trajectories of people with dementia compared with matched controls. Longitudinal analysis of linked health and administrative data.

OBJECTIVES: To provide insight into the health and social care costs during the disease trajectory in persons with dementia and the impact of institutionalization and death on healthcare costs compared with matched persons without dementia. METHODS: Electronic health record data from family physicians were linked with national administrative databases to estimate costs of primary care, medication, secondary care, mental care, home care and institutional care for people with dementia and matched persons from the year before the recorded dementia diagnosis until death or a maximum of 4 years after the diagnosis. RESULTS: Total mean health and social care costs among persons with dementia increased substantially during the disease trajectory, mainly due to institutional care costs. For people who remained living in the community, mean health and social care costs are higher for people with dementia than for those without dementia, while for those who are admitted to a long-term care facility, mean health and social care costs are higher for people without dementia than for those with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The steep rise in health and social care costs across the dementia care trajectory is mainly due to increasing costs for institutional care. For those remaining in the community, home care costs and hospital care costs were the main cost drivers. Future research should adopt a societal perspective to investigate the influence of including social costs.

Cost-effectiveness of the Namaste care family program for nursing home residents with advanced dementia in comparison with usual care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a progressive disease that decreases quality of life of persons with dementia and is associated with high societal costs. The burden of caring for persons with dementia also decreases the quality of life of family caregivers. The objective of this study was to assess the societal cost-effectiveness of Namaste Care Family program in comparison with usual care in nursing home residents with advanced dementia. METHODS: Nursing homes were randomized to either Namaste Care Family program or usual care. Outcome measures of the cluster-randomized trial in 231 residents included Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) and the Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) for family caregivers over 12 months of follow-up. Health states were measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire which were translated into utilities. QALYs were calculated by multiplying the amount of time a participant spent in a specific health state with the utility score associated with that health state. Healthcare utilization costs were estimated using standard unit costs, while intervention costs were estimated using a bottom-up approach. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapped multilevel models were used after multiple imputation. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated. RESULTS: The Namaste Care Family program was more effective than usual care in terms of QUALID (- 0.062, 95%CI: - 0.40 to 0.28), QALY (0.0017, 95%CI: - 0.059 to 0.063) and GAIN (0.075, 95%CI: - 0.20 to 0.35). Total societal costs were lower for the Namaste Care Family program as compared to usual care (- 552 €, 95%CI: - 2920 to 1903). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a ceiling ratio of 0 €/unit of effect extra was 0.70 for the QUALID, QALY and GAIN. CONCLUSIONS: The Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register ( http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp , identifier: NL5570, date of registration: 2016/03/23).

Effects of the Namaste Care Family programme on quality of life of nursing home residents with advanced dementia and on family caregiving experiences: study protocol of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Quality of life of people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes is often suboptimal. Family caregivers can feel frustrated with limited contact with their relatives, which results in visits that are perceived as stressful and not very meaningful. Few psychosocial interventions are specifically developed for people with advanced dementia, and actively involve family caregivers or volunteers. Also, interventions usually stop when it becomes difficult for people to participate. The Namaste Care Family programme aims to increase the quality of life of people with advanced dementia, and improve family caregiving experiences through connecting to people and making them comfortable. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our study will evaluate the effects of the Namaste Care Family programme on quality of life of people with advanced dementia living in nursing homes and family caregiving experiences using a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Longitudinal analyses will be performed taking into account clustering at the nursing home level. Both a cost-effectiveness and a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective will be performed. We will modify the Namaste Care Family programme to increase family and volunteer involvement in ongoing and end-of-life care. Data collection involves assessments by family caregivers, nursing staff and elderly care physicians using questionnaires, and observations by the researchers at baseline and multiple times over 12 months. The last questionnaire will be sent up to month 24 after the death of the person with dementia. During semistructured interviews, the feasibility, accessibility and sustainability of the Namaste Care Family programme will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol is approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam (protocol no. 2016.399) and registered with the Nederlands Trial Register (NTR5692). The findings will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and presentations for healthcare professionals where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5692.

[Implementation and (cost-)effectiveness of case management for people with dementia and their informal caregivers: results of the COMPAS study]. / Implementatie en (kosten-)effectiviteit van casemanagement voor mensen met dementie en hun mantelzorgers: resultaten van de COMPAS-studie.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of case management for dementia have emerged over the past few years. In the COMPAS study (Collaborative dementia care for patients and caregivers study), two prominent Dutch case management forms were studied: the linkage and the integrated care form. AIM OF STUDY: Evaluation of the (cost)effectiveness of two dementia case management forms compared to usual care as well as factors that facilitated or impeded their implementation. METHODS: A mixed methods design with a) a prospective, observational controlled cohort study with 2 years follow-up among 521 dyads of people with dementia and their primary informal caregiver with and without case management; b) interviews with 22 stakeholders on facilitating and impeding factors of the implementation and continuity of the two case management models. Outcome measures were severity and frequency of behavioural problems (NPI) for the person with dementia and mental health complaints (GHQ-12) for the informal caregiver, total met and unmet care needs (CANE) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Outcomes showed a better quality of life of informal caregivers in the integrated model compared to the linkage model. Caregivers in the control group reported more care needs than those in both case management groups. The independence of the case management provider in the integrated model facilitated the implementation, while the rivalry between multiple providers in the linkage model impeded the implementation. The costs of care were lower in the linkage model (minus 22 %) and integrated care model (minus 33 %) compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: The integrated care form was (very) cost-effective in comparison with the linkage form or no case management. The integrated care form is easy to implement.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Two Forms of Case Management Compared to a Control Group for Persons with Dementia and Their Informal Caregivers from a Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article was to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of the two most prominent types of case management in the Netherlands (intensive case management and linkage models) against no access to case management (control group) for people with already diagnosed dementia and their informal caregivers. METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective embedded within a two year prospective, observational, controlled, cohort study with 521 informal caregivers and community-dwelling persons with dementia. Case management provided within one care organization (intensive case management model, ICMM), case management where care was provided by different care organizations within one region (Linkage model, LM), and a group with no access to case management (control) were compared. The economic evaluation related incremental costs to incremental effects regarding neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI), psychological health of the informal caregiver (GHQ-12), and quality adjusted life years (QALY) of the person with dementia and informal caregiver. RESULTS: Inverse-propensity-score-weighted models showed no significant differences in clinical or total cost outcomes between the three groups. Informal care costs were significantly lower in the ICMM group compared to both other groups. Day center costs were significantly lower in the ICMM group compared to the control group. For all outcomes, the probability that the ICMM was cost-effective in comparison with LM and the control group was larger than 0.97 at a threshold ratio of 0 €/incremental unit of effect. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that the ICMM is cost-effective compared to the control group and the LM. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution since this study was not a randomized controlled trial.

Predictors of Societal Costs in Dementia Patients and Their Informal Caregivers: A Two-Year Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Dementia poses a substantial economic burden on society. Knowing which factors predict high costs in dementia may help to better target interventions and optimize resource allocation. This study aimed to identify predictors of the total societal costs in dementia patients and their informal caregivers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 2-year follow up. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 192 community-dwelling patients with dementia and their primary informal caregivers in the Netherlands. MEASUREMENTS: Data on health care resource utilization, informal carer time and caregivers' work absenteeism were collected by cost diaries and interviews. Predictors of total costs were identified for patient-caregiver dyads, and for patients and informal caregivers separately by performing univariate and multivariate generalized linear models. RESULTS: Societal costs of patient-caregiver dyads averaged €75,084 (SEM: €4,263) in the first year and €99,369 (SEM: €6,441) in the second year. Sixty percent was attributed to costs of informal care. Patient impairments in activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), disruptions during daily activities of the caregiver, and receiving case management were significantly associated with higher costs in dyads. The same predictors remained significant for patients' costs separately, and for informal caregivers, a poorer caregiver's quality of life and having more chronic diseases determined higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: The societal costs of dementia are substantial and mainly due to high costs of informal care. The burden for caregivers caused by a disrupted schedule and patients' ADL and IADL dependencies contributed most to the total costs. Interventions targeting these factors effectively might result in relevant economic benefits for society.

The cost-effectiveness of a family meetings intervention to prevent depression and anxiety in family caregivers of patients with dementia: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Dementia imposes a heavy burden on health and social care systems as well as on family caregivers who provide a substantial portion of the care. Interventions that effectively support caregivers may prevent or delay patient institutionalization and hence be cost-effective. However, evidence about the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a family meetings intervention for family caregivers of dementia patients in comparison with usual care over a period of 12 months. METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective alongside a randomized trial of 192 primary caregivers with community-dwelling dementia patients. Outcome measures included the Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALY) of caregivers and patients and the incidence of depression and anxiety disorders in caregivers. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputations. Bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty around the cost-differences and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The bootstrapped cost-effect pairs were plotted on a cost-effectiveness plane and used to estimate cost-effectiveness curves. RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects between the groups were found. At 12 months, total costs per patient and primary caregiver dyad were substantial: €77,832 for the intervention group and €75,201 for the usual care group (adjusted mean difference per dyad €4,149, 95% CI -13,371 to 21,956, ICER 157,534). The main cost driver was informal care (66% of total costs), followed by patients' day treatment and costs of hospital and long-term care facility admissions (23%). Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the maximum probability that the intervention was considered cost-effective in comparison with usual care reached 0.4 for the outcome QALY per patient-caregiver dyad and 0.6 for the caregivers' incidence of depression and/or anxiety disorders regardless of the willingness to pay. CONCLUSIONS: The annual costs of caring for a person with dementia were substantial with informal care being by far the largest contributor to the total societal costs. Based on this study, family meetings cannot be considered a cost-effective intervention strategy in comparison with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN register, ISRCTN90163486.

(Cost)-effectiveness of family meetings on indicated prevention of anxiety and depressive symptoms and disorders of primary family caregivers of patients with dementia: design of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a major public health problem with enormous costs to society and major consequences for both patients and their relatives. Family members of persons with dementia provide much of the care for older adults with dementia in the community. Caring for a demented relative is not easy and fraught with emotional strain, distress, and physical exhaustion. Family caregivers of dementia patients have an extremely high risk developing affective disorders such as major depression and anxiety disorder. Family meetings appear to be among the most powerful psychosocial interventions to reduce depression in caregivers. An American landmark study reported substantial beneficial effects of a multifaceted intervention where family meetings had a central place on depression in family caregivers as well as on delay of institutionalization of patients. These effects were not replicated in other countries yet. We perform the first trial comparing only structured family meetings with significant others versus usual care among primary family caregivers of community dwelling demented patients and measure the effectiveness on both depression and anxiety in the primary caregiver, both on disorder and symptom levels. METHODS/DESIGN: In this randomized controlled trial effectiveness as well as cost-effectiveness of family meetings is evaluated. The intervention group receives four family meetings with family and close friends of the primary family caregiver of a community dwelling patient with a clinical diagnosis of dementia. Dyads of patients and their primary caregiver are followed up to one year after baseline assessment. The main outcome measures are the incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders assessed with the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and the severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms in caregivers is measured by validated self report instruments: the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) for depression and the anxiety scales of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scales (HADS) for anxiety. The economic evaluation is performed from a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: By evaluating the effectiveness of only structured family meetings organized in the Netherlands, this study will contribute to the existing literature about the value of psychosocial interventions for dementia caregivers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry ISRCTN90163486.