This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives To examine the cost-effectiveness of a digitally supported care management system (CMS) for caregivers of people with dementia (PwD) compared with usual care. Methods The analysis was based on 192 caregivers (n = 96 CMS, n = 96 usual care) of PwD in a cluster-randomized controlled trial testing a digitally supported CMS, aiming to identify and address caregivers' unmet needs and develop and implement an individualized support and care plan over 6 months. Incremental costs from the public-payer and societal perspectives, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 6 months after baseline were calculated using multivariate regression models. We assessed the probability of cost-effectiveness using a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Results Caregivers in the intervention group gained QALYs (+0.004 [95% CI -0.003 to 0.012], P value = .225) and had lower costs from the public payer (-378€ [1926-1168], P value = .630), but higher costs from the societal perspective (+1324 [-3634 to 6284], P value = .599). The intervention dominated usual care from the payer perspective, whereas the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €331 000/QALY from a societal perspective. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 72% and 79% from the public payer and 33% and 35% from a societal perspective at the willingness-to-pay thresholds threshold of €40 000 and €80 000/QALY gained. Conclusions CMS was likely cost-effective from the payer but not from a societal perspective, underlining the importance of informal care. The gain in QALY was marginal and could be due to the short observation period. Focusing on both the caregiver and the PwD, rather than assessing the PwD needs through the caregiver, could improve the cost-effectiveness results.

Key findings

Objectives To examine the cost-effectiveness of a digitally supported care management system (CMS) for caregivers of people with dementia (PwD) compared with usual care.
Results Caregivers in the intervention group gained QALYs (+0.004 [95% CI -0.003 to 0.012], P value = .225) and had lower costs from the public payer (-378€ [1926-1168], P value = .630), but higher costs from the societal perspective (+1324 [-3634 to 6284], P value = .599).
Focusing on both the caregiver and the PwD, rather than assessing the PwD needs through the caregiver, could improve the cost-effectiveness results.

Why it matters

In this cluster-randomized controlled trial of 192 caregivers, the digitally supported care management group gained QALYs (+0.004) and had lower public payer costs (-378€) but higher societal costs (+1324€), with the intervention dominating usual care from the payer perspective. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 72% and 79% from the public payer and 33% and 35% from a societal perspective at the willingness-to-pay thresholds, so this concerns caregiver support rather than curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →

Study details

Study designRCT
Participants192
Effect sizeDominant from payer perspective; ICER 331,000 euros/QALY from societal perspective; QALY gain 0.004
Evidence strengthModerate

Limitations

The authors note the QALY gain was marginal and could be due to the short six-month observation period, and that assessing the person with dementia's needs only through the caregiver may have limited the cost-effectiveness results.

How this study scored 55/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. We have no data on free to read, so that was left out: it earned 54 of the 98 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Value in Health)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Value in Health: journal h-index 169 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	11 / 12	A randomised controlled trial
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	192 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	1 / 2	Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Bernhard Michalowsky: h-index 31 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	0 / 3	Universität Greifswald: institution h-index 631 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39922302)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	54 / 98	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 54 of the 98 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total	55 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — Unpaywall lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 11 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Pfaff, M., Hoffmann, W., Boekholt, M., Biernetzky, O., Blotenberg, I., Afrin, D., et al. (2025). Cost-Effectiveness of a Digitally Supported Care Management Program for Caregivers of People With Dementia. Value in Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.011

Vancouver

Pfaff M, Hoffmann W, Boekholt M, Biernetzky O, Blotenberg I, Afrin D, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of a Digitally Supported Care Management Program for Caregivers of People With Dementia. Value in Health. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.011. PMID: 39922302.

BibTeX

@article{pfaff2025-39922302,
  author  = {Pfaff, M. and Hoffmann, W. and Boekholt, M. and Biernetzky, O. and Blotenberg, I. and Afrin, D. and Platen, M. and Teipel, S. and Thyrian, JR. and Kilimann, I. and Michalowsky, B.},
  title   = {{Cost-Effectiveness of a Digitally Supported Care Management Program for Caregivers of People With Dementia}},
  journal = {Value in Health},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.011},
  pmid    = {39922302},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.011}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Costs and economics

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →