SpringerLink
Log in

Compassionate Care and Health Economics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Art and Science of Compassionate Care: A Practical Guide

Part of the book series: New Paradigms in Healthcare ((NPH))

  • 359 Accesses

Abstract

Where a measure of compassionate care exists at all, they fail to produce any summary measure of utility to be compared across alternatives in an economic evaluation. The example of the preference-based measure described here allows integration into the economic evaluation framework whilst measuring trade-off between compassion and other characteristics’ (beyond health outcomes) important to people when choosing between alternative care options. Its application was successful in diabetes and provides a framework applicable to multiple conditions and settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

eBook
EUR 26.74
Price includes VAT (Thailand)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
EUR 24.99
Price excludes VAT (Thailand)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Walker J. Why Americans spend so much on health care-in 12 charts. Wall Street J. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brody JE. The cost of not taking your medication. New York, NY: The New York Times; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barsade SG, O’Neill OA. What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a long-term care setting. Adm Sci Q. 2014;59:551–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilkinson H, Whittington R, Perry L, Eames C. Examining the relationship between burnout and empathy in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Burn Res. 2017;6:18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kok BE, Coffey KA, Cohn MA, Catalino LI, Vacharkulksemsuk T, Algoe SB, Brantley M, Fredrickson BL. How positive emotions build physical health: perceived positive social connections account for the upward spiral between positive emotions and vagal tone. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(7):1123–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Manczak EM, DeLongis A, Chen E. Does empathy have a cost? Diverging psychological and physiological effects within families. Health Psychol. 2016;35:211–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Weng HY, Fox AS, Hessenthaler HC, Stodola DE, Davidson RJ. The role of compassion in altruistic hel** and punishment behavior. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. West CP, Tan AD, Habermann TM, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Association of resident fatigue and distress with perceived medical errors. JAMA. 2009;302:1294–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McClelland LE, Vogus TJ. Compassion practices and HCAHPS: does rewarding and supporting workplace compassion influence patient perceptions? Health Serv Res. 2014;49(5):1670–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Health Foundation. Person-centred care made simple what everyone should know about person-centred care. London: Health Foundation; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sinclair S, Russell LB, Hack TF, Kondejewski J, Sawatzky R. Measuring compassion in healthcare: a comprehensive and critical review. Patient. 2017;10(4):389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Carlton J, Connell J, Brazier J. Criteria for item selection for a preference-based measure for use in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(5):1425–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Morando F, Maresio G, Piano S, Fasolato S, Cavallin M, Romano A, Rosi S, Gola E, Frigo AC, Stanco M, Destro C, Rupolo G, Mantoan D, Gatta A, Angeli P. How to improve care in outpatients with cirrhosis and ascites: a new model of care coordination by consultant hepatologists. J Hepatol. 2013;59(2):257–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Glossary. 2022. Accessed 06 Feb 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Darvishi A, Goudarzi R, Zadeh VH, Barouni M. Cost-benefit analysis of IUI and IVF based on willingness to pay approach; case study: Iran. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0231584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abdulrahim B, Scotland G, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Assessing couples' preferences for fresh or frozen embryo transfer: a discrete choice experiment. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(11):2891–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boyle KJ, Desvouges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Hudson SP. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. J Environ Econ Manag. 1994;27:64–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. New York: Springer; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. de Bekker-Grob E, Ryan M, Gerard K. Applying discrete choice experiments to value health and health care: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tinelli M. Applying discrete social experiments in social care research. Method Reviews, 19. London: NIHR, SSCR. 2016. Accessed 06 Feb 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2. PMID: 30392040; PMCID: PMC6386055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang Y, Wang Z, Wang Z, Li X, Pang X, Wang S. Application of discrete choice experiment in health care: a bibliometric analysis. Front Public Health. 2021;4(9):673698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vale L. The progressive economic evaluation of a surgical technology: a case study of surgical repair of inguinal hernia. Thesis (Ph.D.), Aberdeen University. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Petrou S, McIntosh E. Women’s preferences for attributes of first-trimester miscarriage management: a stated preference discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2009;12:551–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Van der Pol M, Shiell A, Au F, et al. Eliciting individual preferences for health care: a case study of perinatal care. Health Expect. 2010;13:4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tinelli M, Ryan M, Bond C. What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-016-0108-4. Epub 2016 Jul 29. PMID: 27472943; PMCID: PMC4967060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Radley A, van der Pol M, Dillon JF. Application of a discrete choice experiment approach to support the design of a hepatitis C testing service in primary care. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;65:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ratcliffe J, Chen G, Cleland J, Kaambwa B, Khadka J, Hutchinson C, Milte R. Australia’s aged care system: assessing the views and preferences of the general public for quality of care and future funding. Adelaide: Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Sep;32(9):883–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Coulter A, Collins A. Making shared decision-making a reality: no decision about me, without me. London: The King’s Fund; 2011. Accessed 07 Feb 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  34. The NHS Mandate. https://www.england.nhs.uk/

  35. NICE. Shared decision making. 2022. Accessed 06 Feb 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  36. WHO Europe. Transforming health services delivery towards people centred-health systems. 2014. Accessed 06 Feb 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shea S, Samoutis G, Wynyard R, et al. Encouraging compassion through teaching and learning: a case study in Cyprus. J Compassionate Health Care. 2016;3:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tinelli M, Petrou P, Samoutis G, Traynor V, Olympios G, McGuire A. Implementing shared-decision-making for diabetes care across country settings: what really matters to people? Health Policy. 2017;121(7):786–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tinelli M, Petrou P, Samoutis G, Olympios G, McGuire A. Improving quality care for diabetes in the community: what do Cypriot patients want? Int J Qual Health Care. 2018;30(6):443–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Samoutis G, Samouti S, Aristodemou PA. Cultivating a therapeutic compassionate relationship: the 3S approach. J Med Life. 2019;12(4):449–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Care Policy Evaluation Centre, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Michela Tinelli

  2. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Michela Tinelli

  3. International Institute for Compassionate Care, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Michela Tinelli

  4. International Institute for Compassionate Care, Nicosia, Cyprus

    George Samoutis

  5. Apostolos Loukas Medical Centre, Nicosia, Cyprus

    George Samoutis

  6. University of Nicosia Medical School, Nicosia, Cyprus

    George Samoutis

  7. St George’s University of London Medical School, London, UK

    George Samoutis

  8. Cyprus National Centre for Clinical Evidence, Nicosia, Cyprus

    George Samoutis

Authors
  1. Michela Tinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Samoutis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, London, UK

    Andreas Samoutis

  2. Medical School, University of Nicosia, Engomi, Cyprus

    George Samoutis

  3. International Institute for Compassionate Care, Egkomi, Cyprus

    Neophytos Stylianou

  4. University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Andreas Anastasiou

  5. Medical School, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece

    Christos Lionis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tinelli, M., Samoutis, G. (2023). Compassionate Care and Health Economics. In: Samoutis, A., Samoutis, G., Stylianou, N., Anastasiou, A., Lionis, C. (eds) The Art and Science of Compassionate Care: A Practical Guide. New Paradigms in Healthcare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21524-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21524-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-21523-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-21524-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation