4.7 Article

Informal care for stroke survivors - Results from the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS)

Journal

STROKE
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 1028-1033

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000013067.24300.B0

Keywords

Australia; caregivers; cerebrovascular disorders; costs and cost analysis; incidence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-In formal caregivers play an important role in the lives of stroke patients, but the cost of providing this care has not been estimated. The purpose of this study was to determine the nature and amount of informal care provided to stroke patients and to estimate the economic cost of that care. Methods-The primary caregivers of stroke patients registered in the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS) were interviewed at 3, 6, and 12 months after stroke, and the nature and amount of informal care provided were documented. The opportunity and replacement costs of informal care for all first-ever-in-a-lifetime strokes (excluding subarachnoid hemorrhages) that occurred in 1997 in Australia were estimated. Results-Among 3-month stroke survivors, 74% required assistance with activities of daily living and received informal care from family or friends. Two thirds of primary caregivers were women, and most primary caregivers (>90%) Provided care during family or leisure time. Total first-year caregiver time costs for all first-ever-in-a-lifetime strokes were estimated to be A$21.7 million (opportunity cost approach) or A$42.5 million (replacement cost approach), and the present values of lifetime caregiver time costs were estimated to be A$171.4 million (opportunity cost approach) or A$331.8 million (replacement cost approach). Conclusions-Informal care for stroke survivors represents a significant hidden cost to Australian society. Because our community is rapidly aging, this informal care burden may increase significantly in the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available