OBJECTIVES: The demographic and social changes associated with the aging of the population and the increasing incidence of chronic diseases underline the important role of informal caregivers. This study aims at critically review cost-utility evaluations of interventions for informal caregivers.

METHODS: A systematic database review was conducted using Medline, Embase, NHS EED, and Econlit, from origin to October 2015. The main criteria to select studies were: English language, cost-utility analyses, informal carers interventions. The reporting quality of economic analyses was evaluated by two authors using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Modelling-related criteria (i.e. items 15, 16 and 18) were omitted for single study based cost-effectiveness evaluations. Studies fulfilling the criteria mentioned in the items were scored ‘yes’ and assigned a score of 1 per correct item (‘no’ was scored as 0). To resolve disagreement between the two reviewers, a consensus procedure was used. A third co-author was consulted when disagreements persisted.

RESULTS: The search identified N=2765 studies after duplicates were removed. Titles and abstracts were screened, and N=132 full texts were identified as needing to be assessed for eligibility. Of those, N=8 economic evaluations of informal caregiver interventions met the inclusion criteria. The main geographic area was UK (N=5). Clinical fields were mental and/or behavioural (N=7) and cardiovascular (N=1). Cost-utility analyses were mainly based on randomized clinical trials (N=5). One was a Markov model based economic evaluation. Seven studies exceeded the 50% CHEERS threshold and one the CHEERS score of 85%.

CONCLUSIONS: Our critical review highlights the lack of cost-utility analyses dealing with interventions to support informal caregivers and the relative paucity of good reporting practices.