Michalowsky Bernhard, Thyrian Jochen René, Eichler Tilly, Hertel Johannes, Wucherer Diana, Flessa Steffen, Hoffmann Wolfgang
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Rostock/Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Department of General Business Administration and Health Care Management, Ernst Moritz Arndt University Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;50(1):47-59. doi: 10.3233/JAD-150600.
The majority of people with dementia (PwD) live at home and require professional formal care and informal care that is generally provided by close relatives.
To determine the utilization and costs of formal and informal care for PwD, indirect costs because of productivity losses of caregivers, and the associations between cost, socio-demographic and clinical variables.
The analysis includes the data of 262 community-dwelling PwD and their caregivers. Socio-demographics, clinical variables, and the utilization of formal care were assessed within the baseline assessment. To evaluate informal care costs, the Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) questionnaire was used. Costs were calculated from a social perspective. Associations were evaluated using multiple linear and logistic regression models.
Formal care services were utilized less (26.3%) than informal care (85.1%), resulting in a cost ratio of one to ten(1,646 €; 16,473 €, respectively). In total, 29% of caregivers were employed, and every seventh (14.3%) experienced productivity losses, which corresponded to 1,258 € annually. Whereas increasing deficits in daily living activities were associated with higher formal and higher informal costs, living alone was significantly associated with higher formal care costs and the employment of a caregiver was associated with lower informal care costs.
Informal care contributes the most to total care costs. Living alone is a major cost driver for formal costs because of the lower availability of potential informal care. The availability of informal care is limited and productivity losses are increased when a caregiver is employed.
大多数痴呆症患者居家生活,需要专业的正式照护以及通常由近亲提供的非正式照护。
确定痴呆症患者正式照护和非正式照护的利用情况及成本、照护者生产力损失导致的间接成本,以及成本、社会人口统计学和临床变量之间的关联。
分析纳入了262名社区居住的痴呆症患者及其照护者的数据。在基线评估中对社会人口统计学、临床变量和正式照护的利用情况进行了评估。为评估非正式照护成本,使用了痴呆症资源利用(RUD)问卷。成本从社会角度进行计算。使用多元线性和逻辑回归模型评估关联。
正式照护服务的利用率(26.3%)低于非正式照护(85.1%),成本比为1比10(分别为1646欧元和16473欧元)。总体而言,29%的照护者有工作,每七分之一(14.3%)的照护者经历了生产力损失,相当于每年1258欧元。日常生活活动能力缺陷增加与更高的正式照护成本和更高的非正式照护成本相关,独居与更高的正式照护成本显著相关,照护者有工作与更低的非正式照护成本相关。
非正式照护对总照护成本的贡献最大。独居是正式成本的主要驱动因素,因为潜在非正式照护的可获得性较低。非正式照护的可获得性有限,当照护者有工作时生产力损失会增加。