OBJECTIVES: The Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D) and the Assessment of Quality of Life-6D (AQOL-6D) presently represent the only two generic preference-based instruments developed for application with young people with both adult- and adolescent-specific scoring algorithms. The main objective of this study was to compare and contrast the application of adult and adolescent scoring algorithms for the CHU-9D and AQOL-6D in valuing the health of a community-based sample of adolescents. METHODS: A Web-based survey including the CHU-9D and the AQOL-6D was developed for administration to adolescents, aged 11 to 17 years, residing in Australia (n = 500). Individual responses to both instruments were converted to values by using first the adult and second the adolescent scoring algorithms pertaining to each instrument. RESULTS: Both the AQOL-6D and the CHU-9D discriminated well according to health status and the presence of long-standing illness regardless of the scoring algorithm. Within each instrument, however, important discrepancies were found in that employment of the adolescent algorithm was found to result in consistently lower mean health state values for the CHU-9D but consistently higher mean health state values for the AQOL-6D relative to the employment of their respective adult algorithms and these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The differences in adolescent and adult values for identical health states are more profound for the CHU-9D and ultimately may be significant enough to have an impact on health care policy. It is important to note that there are important differences between the CHU-9D instrument and the AQOL-6D instrument that may also have a significant impact on the valuations obtained.
OBJECTIVES: The Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D) and the Assessment of Quality of Life-6D (AQOL-6D) presently represent the only two generic preference-based instruments developed for application with young people with both adult- and adolescent-specific scoring algorithms. The main objective of this study was to compare and contrast the application of adult and adolescent scoring algorithms for the CHU-9D and AQOL-6D in valuing the health of a community-based sample of adolescents. METHODS: A Web-based survey including the CHU-9D and the AQOL-6D was developed for administration to adolescents, aged 11 to 17 years, residing in Australia (n = 500). Individual responses to both instruments were converted to values by using first the adult and second the adolescent scoring algorithms pertaining to each instrument. RESULTS: Both the AQOL-6D and the CHU-9D discriminated well according to health status and the presence of long-standing illness regardless of the scoring algorithm. Within each instrument, however, important discrepancies were found in that employment of the adolescent algorithm was found to result in consistently lower mean health state values for the CHU-9D but consistently higher mean health state values for the AQOL-6D relative to the employment of their respective adult algorithms and these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The differences in adolescent and adult values for identical health states are more profound for the CHU-9D and ultimately may be significant enough to have an impact on health care policy. It is important to note that there are important differences between the CHU-9D instrument and the AQOL-6D instrument that may also have a significant impact on the valuations obtained.
Authors: Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa; Gang Chen; Elisabeth Huynh; Remo Russo; Julie Ratcliffe Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Julie Ratcliffe; Emily Lancsar; Thomas Flint; Billingsley Kaambwa; Ruth Walker; Gill Lewin; Mary Luszcz; Ian D Cameron Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Rajan Sharma; Yuanyuan Gu; Teresa Y C Ching; Vivienne Marnane; Bonny Parkinson Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Kim Dalziel; Max Catchpool; Borja García-Lorenzo; Inigo Gorostiza; Richard Norman; Oliver Rivero-Arias Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Jonathan M Batchelor; Kim S Thomas; Perways Akram; Jaskiran Azad; Anthony Bewley; Joanne R Chalmers; Seau Tak Cheung; Lelia Duley; Viktoria Eleftheriadou; Robert Ellis; Adam Ferguson; Jonathan Mr Goulding; Rachel H Haines; Hamdi Hamad; John R Ingram; Bisola Laguda; Paul Leighton; Nick Levell; Areti Makrygeorgou; Garry D Meakin; Adam Millington; Malobi Ogboli; Amirtha Rajasekaran; Jane C Ravenscroft; Andrew Rogers; Tracey H Sach; Miriam Santer; Julia Stainforth; Wei Tan; Shyamal Wahie; Jennifer White; Maxine E Whitton; Hywel C Williams; Andrew Wright; Alan A Montgomery Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Long Khanh-Dao Le; Scott Richards-Jones; Mary Lou Chatterton; Lidia Engel; David Lawrence; Chris Stevenson; Genevieve Pepin; Julie Ratcliffe; Michael Sawyer; Cathrine Mihalopoulos Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 4.147