Moreover, few other subjective burden instruments were available from these studies to compare the CarerQol with (e.g. [ 44, 46]).
In a systematic review of caregiver burden instruments, Deeken et al. [ 15] identified 28 self-report questionnaires assessing the burden, needs, and quality of life of informal caregivers.
At this time, only two instruments combine an economic valuation of informal care with the informational density of burden instruments: The Caregiver Experience Scale (CES) [ 35, 36] and Care-related Quality of Life instrument (CarerQol) [ 34].
While many of these subjective burden instruments provide a detailed description of caregiving burden, they do not value the impact of caregiving in economic terms, making them unsuitable for economic evaluations.
The CRA was preferred above other caregiver burden instruments for this study because other instruments were developed for caregivers of persons with mental impairment only or addressed only the negative consequences of caregiving [ 22- 24].
Several generic and disease-specific subjective burden instruments are available describing the negative impacts of caring, such as problems experienced with mental health, physical health, or social and financial aspects [ 21, 28- 32].
A review of the existing caregiver burden instruments in the published literature revealed a range of validated and non-validated instruments measuring various aspects of the caregiver experience, including burden, mood, needs, and quality of life, across a range of conditions.
These tests will be conducted by comparing the performance of the CarerQol with a number of other subjective burden instruments and a range of subgroup analyses comparing between groups of carers characterised by differences in caregiving strain, health and socio-economic characteristics.
Therefore, if using a shortened version the same information is collected but with little burden, the instrument would be useful.
