↓ Skip to main content

Economic valuation of informal care

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, February 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
320 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Economic valuation of informal care
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, February 2004
DOI 10.1007/s10198-003-0189-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernard van den Berg, Werner B. F. Brouwer, Marc A. Koopmanschap

Abstract

Informal care makes up a significant part of the total amount of care provided to care recipients with chronic and terminal diseases. Still, informal care is often neglected in economic evaluations of health care programs. Probably this is related to the fact that the costs of informal care are to an important extent related to time inputs by relatives and friends of care recipients and time is not easy to value. Development of theoretically sound, yet easily applicable valuation methods is therefore important since ignoring the costs of informal care may lead to undesirable shifts between formal and informal care. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that providing informal care may lead to health problems for the caregiver, both in terms of morbidity and mortality. Until now these health effects have not been incorporated in economic evaluations. More attention for the identification and valuation of the full costs and (health) effects of informal care for the informal caregiver seems needed therefore. This contribution presents a critical evaluation of the available methods to incorporate informal care in economic evaluations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 157 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 20%
Student > Master 29 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 27 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 38 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 19%
Social Sciences 26 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Psychology 7 4%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 39 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,863,674
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#165
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,876
of 146,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 146,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them