Table 3.
Methodological characteristics of studies (N = 43)
| Item | Detail | Number of studies n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Study design | Prospective | 17 (39.53) |
| Retrospective | 25 (58.14) | |
| Both | 1 (2.33) | |
| Type of costing analysis | Bottom-up | 38 (88.37) |
| Top-down | 4 (9.30) | |
| Both | 1 (2.33) | |
| Perspective of studies | Healthcare system (public, private) | 23 (53.49) |
| Provider (hospital, clinic) | 7 (16.28) | |
| Societal | 12 (27.91) | |
| Patient | 1 (2.33) | |
| No data | 1 (2.33) | |
| Costs included | Direct healthcare costs | 42 (97.67) |
| Direct non-healthcare costs | 13 (30.23) | |
| Direct healthcare costs from patienta | 12 (27.91) | |
| Patient’s productivity lossa | 3 (6.98) | |
| Caregiver’s productivity lossa | 9 (20.93) | |
| Intensity of resources use last weeks of PC (yes) | 20 (46.51) | |
| Regression analysis (yes) | 19 (44.19) | |
| Sensitivity analysis (yes) | 7 (16.28) | |
| Exploring caregiving | n = 10b | |
| Valuation method informal caregivinga | Opportunity costs method | 10 (100) |
| Proxy good method | – | |
| Several methods | – | |
| Time method reveala | Recall methods | 2 (20) |
| Direct question | 8 (80) | |
| Time of caregiving activities detailed (yes)c | 2 (20) |
PC palliative care
aFrom those that report patient’s productivity loss, societal perspective was adopted in two studies [1, 2] and patients’ perspective in one study [3]
bFrom studies that report caregiving (n = 10)
cThe detail denotes the time devoted to care. Only Chai et al. [4] and Brick et al. [5] list some activities (see text for details)