Alastair G Canaway1, Emma J Frew. 1. Health Economics Unit, Public Health Building, Universityof Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. axc105@bham.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the performance of the child health utility 9D (CHU-9D) and EuroQol 5D-youth (EQ-5D-Y) in children aged 6–7 years. METHOD: The CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y were interviewer-administered to 160 children aged 6–7 years at six schools across the West Midlands. Missing values, time taken to complete instruments and interviewer ratings were recorded to assess feasibility/acceptability. Construct validity was assessed by testing convergent validity hypotheses. Reliability was examined via a test–retest of a sub-sample. Psychometric properties were further examined by exploring distributions of utility scores, qualitative notes and design of the questionnaires. RESULTS: No missing responses were recorded with over 80% of children’s understanding being rated as good/excellent for both questionnaires. The average completion time for both instruments was less than 3 minutes, demonstrating excellent feasibility/acceptability. Evidence of construct validity was recorded with 12 of the 13 convergent hypotheses being supported. Test–retest reliability was relatively poor for both instruments with weighted kappa coefficients ranging from fair to moderate. CONCLUSION: Children aged 6–7 years can feasibly complete utility instruments when interviewer-administered. The reliability of the instruments is of concern and requires further study. With respect to content validity and other psychometric properties, the CHU-9D is favoured to the EQ-5D-Y. Until the EuroQol group produces tariff values for the EQ-5D-Y, we recommend that the EQ-5D-Y is not used for utility elicitation in this age group.
PURPOSE: To examine the performance of the child health utility 9D (CHU-9D) and EuroQol 5D-youth (EQ-5D-Y) in children aged 6–7 years. METHOD: The CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y were interviewer-administered to 160 children aged 6–7 years at six schools across the West Midlands. Missing values, time taken to complete instruments and interviewer ratings were recorded to assess feasibility/acceptability. Construct validity was assessed by testing convergent validity hypotheses. Reliability was examined via a test–retest of a sub-sample. Psychometric properties were further examined by exploring distributions of utility scores, qualitative notes and design of the questionnaires. RESULTS: No missing responses were recorded with over 80% of children’s understanding being rated as good/excellent for both questionnaires. The average completion time for both instruments was less than 3 minutes, demonstrating excellent feasibility/acceptability. Evidence of construct validity was recorded with 12 of the 13 convergent hypotheses being supported. Test–retest reliability was relatively poor for both instruments with weighted kappa coefficients ranging from fair to moderate. CONCLUSION: Children aged 6–7 years can feasibly complete utility instruments when interviewer-administered. The reliability of the instruments is of concern and requires further study. With respect to content validity and other psychometric properties, the CHU-9D is favoured to the EQ-5D-Y. Until the EuroQol group produces tariff values for the EQ-5D-Y, we recommend that the EQ-5D-Y is not used for utility elicitation in this age group.
Authors: Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer; Angela Gosch; Luis Rajmil; Michael Erhart; Jeanet Bruil; Wolfgang Duer; Pascal Auquier; Mick Power; Thomas Abel; Ladislav Czemy; Joanna Mazur; Agnes Czimbalmos; Yannis Tountas; Curt Hagquist; Jean Kilroe; European Kidscreen Group Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: K S Thomas; K Koller; T Dean; C J O'Leary; T H Sach; A Frost; I Pallett; A M Crook; S Meredith; A J Nunn; N Burrows; I Pollock; R Graham-Brown; E O'Toole; D Potter; H C Williams Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Tosin Lambe; Emma Frew; Natalie J Ives; Rebecca L Woolley; Carole Cummins; Elizabeth A Brettell; Emma N Barsoum; Nicholas J A Webb Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Nafsika Afentou; Emma Frew; Samir Mehta; Natalie J Ives; Rebecca L Woolley; Elizabeth A Brettell; Adam R Khan; David V Milford; Detlef Bockenhauer; Moin A Saleem; Angela S Hall; Ania Koziell; Heather Maxwell; Shivaram Hegde; Eric Finlay; Rodney D Gilbert; Caroline Jones; Karl McKeever; Wendy Cook; Nicholas J A Webb; Martin T Christian Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2022-06-22
Authors: Ira Sierwald; Mike T John; Darius Sagheri; Julia Neuschulz; Elisabeth Schüler; Christian Splieth; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Daniel R Reissmann Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Gang Chen; Fei Xu; Elisabeth Huynh; Zhiyong Wang; Katherine Stevens; Julie Ratcliffe Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kapil Sayal; David Daley; Marilyn James; Min Yang; Martin J Batty; John A Taylor; Sarah Pass; Christopher James Sampson; Edward Sellman; Althea Valentine; Chris Hollis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-09-03 Impact factor: 2.692