Literature DB >> 21604821

Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated?

Wendy J Ungar1.   

Abstract

With the growth in the use of health economic evaluation to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions, the challenges in applying standard methods to child health have become apparent. A unique limitation is the paucity of child-specific preference-based measures. A single, valid, preference-based measure of utility that can be used in children of all ages does not exist. Thus, the ability to derive a QALY for use in cost-utility analysis (CUA) is compromised. This paper presents and discusses existing and novel options for deriving utilities for paediatric health states for use in CUAs. While a direct elicitation may be preferred, a child's ability to complete a standard gamble or time trade-off task is hampered by cognitive and age limitations. The abstract notions contained in indirect instruments such as the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index may also pose challenges for young children. Novel approaches to overcome these challenges include the development of age-appropriate instruments such as the EQ-5D-Y, the development of new child-specific utility instruments such as the Child Health Utility-9D and the re-calibration of existing adult instruments to derive preference weights for health states from children themselves. For children aged <6 years, researchers have little choice but to use a proxy reporter such as parents. While parents may be reliable reporters for physical activity limitations and externally manifest symptoms, their ability to accurately report on subjective outcomes such as emotion is questionable. Catalogues of utility weights for a range of conditions are increasingly becoming available but retain many of the same limitations as valuing health states from children or from proxies. Given the dynamic relationship in quality of life (QOL) between family members when a child is ill, it seems appropriate to consider a 'family perspective' rather than an individual perspective in child health state valuation. In a collective approach, health state utilities derived from multiple family members may be combined mathematically. Alternatively, in a unitary approach, a single utility estimate may be determined to represent the family's perspective. This may include deriving utilities through parent-child dyad estimation or by using a household model that combines the utility weights of the patient and family members, incorporating reciprocal QOL effects. While these various approaches to child health state valuation represent novel research developments, the measurement challenges and threats to validity persist. Given the importance of non-health benefits to child health, especially in the domains of education and public policy, it may be worthwhile to consider an approach that allows incorporation of externalities to produce a cost-benefit analysis. The use of discrete-choice methods to assess willingness to pay for novel child health interventions holds promise as a means to produce meaningful economic evidence. Regardless of the approach taken, the highest degree of methodological rigour is essential. The increasing attention being paid by health economic researchers to the measurement challenges of paediatric health state valuation can only increase the value of child health economic evidence for decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21604821     DOI: 10.2165/11591570-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  54 in total

Review 1.  A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Jacek A Kopec; Kevin D Willison
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  The personal costs of caring for a child with a disability: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Donna Anderson; Serge Dumont; Philip Jacobs; Leila Azzaria
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 3.  Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to.

Authors:  George W Torrance
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Anirban Basu; David Meltzer
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2005-04-22       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric, health-related quality-of-life measure.

Authors:  Katherine J Stevens
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2010-01-06

6.  A qualitative analysis of a dyad approach to health-related quality of life measurement in children with asthma.

Authors:  Wendy J Ungar; Cara Mirabelli; Martha Cousins; Katherine M Boydell
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2006-08-02       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  The EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis: a head-to-head comparison.

Authors:  Rianne Oostenbrink; Henriëtte A A Moll; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 8.  Evaluating health-related quality-of-life studies in paediatric populations: some conceptual, methodological and developmental considerations and recent applications.

Authors:  Mirella De Civita; Dean Regier; Abul H Alamgir; Aslam H Anis; Mark J Fitzgerald; Carlo A Marra
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children.

Authors:  Katherine Stevens
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Estimating preference-based health utilities index mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland.

Authors:  Stavros Petrou; Emil Kupek
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  57 in total

1.  Valuing children's health: whose quality of life matters?

Authors:  Eve Wittenberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Systematic Review of Patients' and Parents' Preferences for ADHD Treatment Options and Processes of Care.

Authors:  Nicole K Schatz; Gregory A Fabiano; Charles E Cunningham; Susan dosReis; Daniel A Waschbusch; Stephanie Jerome; Kellina Lupas; Karen L Morris
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  A systematic review of health economic evaluations of vaccines in Brazil.

Authors:  Ana Marli Christovam Sartori; Luciana Martins Rozman; Tassia Cristina Decimoni; Roseli Leandro; Hillegonda Maria Dutilh Novaes; Patrícia Coelho de Soárez
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?

Authors:  Joanna Coast
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2019-08

5.  Prevalence of undernutrition during hospitalisation in a children's hospital: what happens during admission?

Authors:  J Pichler; S M Hill; V Shaw; A Lucas
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.016

6.  Predicting health utilities for children with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Nalin Payakachat; J Mick Tilford; Karen A Kuhlthau; N Job van Exel; Erica Kovacs; Jayne Bellando; Jeffrey M Pyne; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Autism Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 5.216

7.  Commentary: demonstrating cost-effectiveness in pediatric psychology.

Authors:  Meghan E McGrady
Journal:  J Pediatr Psychol       Date:  2014-04-21

Review 8.  Estimates of utility weights in hemophilia: implications for cost-utility analysis of clotting factor prophylaxis.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Shraddha S Chaugule; Joel W Hay
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 2.217

9.  A systematic review of utility values in children with cerebral palsy.

Authors:  Utsana Tonmukayakul; Long Khanh-Dao Le; Shalika Bohingamu Mudiyanselage; Lidia Engel; Jessica Bucholc; Brendan Mulhern; Rob Carter; Cathrine Mihalopoulos
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Preferences for a third-trimester ultrasound scan in a low-risk obstetric population: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Fiona A Lynn; Grainne E Crealey; Fiona A Alderdice; James C McElnay
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.