BACKGROUND: Children's preferences for health states represent an important perspective when comparing the value of alternative health care interventions related to pediatric medicine, and are fundamental to comparative effectiveness research. However, there is debate over whether these preference data can be collected and used. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish psychometric properties of eliciting preferences for health states from children using direct methods. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, EconLit. STUDY SELECTION: English studies, published after 1990, were identified using Medical Subject Headings or keywords. Results were reviewed to confirm that the study was based on: 1) a sample of children, and 2) preferences for health states. DATA EXTRACTION: Standardized data collection forms were used to record the preference elicitation method used, and any reported evidence regarding the validity, reliability, or feasibility of the method. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-six studies were ultimately included in the analysis. The standard gamble and time tradeoff were the most commonly reported direct preference elicitation methods. Seven studies reported validity, four reported reliability, and nine reported feasibility. Of the validity reports, construct validity was assessed most often. Reliability reports typically involved interclass correlation coefficient. For feasibility, four studies reported completion rates. LIMITATIONS: The search was limited to four databases and restricted to English studies published after 1990. Only evidence available in published studies were considered; measurement properties may have been tested in pilot or pre-studies but were not published, and are not included in this review. CONCLUSION: The few studies found through this systematic review demonstrate that there is little empirical evidence on which to judge the use of direct preference elicitation methods with children regarding health states.
BACKGROUND:Children's preferences for health states represent an important perspective when comparing the value of alternative health care interventions related to pediatric medicine, and are fundamental to comparative effectiveness research. However, there is debate over whether these preference data can be collected and used. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish psychometric properties of eliciting preferences for health states from children using direct methods. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, EconLit. STUDY SELECTION: English studies, published after 1990, were identified using Medical Subject Headings or keywords. Results were reviewed to confirm that the study was based on: 1) a sample of children, and 2) preferences for health states. DATA EXTRACTION: Standardized data collection forms were used to record the preference elicitation method used, and any reported evidence regarding the validity, reliability, or feasibility of the method. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-six studies were ultimately included in the analysis. The standard gamble and time tradeoff were the most commonly reported direct preference elicitation methods. Seven studies reported validity, four reported reliability, and nine reported feasibility. Of the validity reports, construct validity was assessed most often. Reliability reports typically involved interclass correlation coefficient. For feasibility, four studies reported completion rates. LIMITATIONS: The search was limited to four databases and restricted to English studies published after 1990. Only evidence available in published studies were considered; measurement properties may have been tested in pilot or pre-studies but were not published, and are not included in this review. CONCLUSION: The few studies found through this systematic review demonstrate that there is little empirical evidence on which to judge the use of direct preference elicitation methods with children regarding health states.
Entities:
Keywords:
Systematic reviews; and valuations; health state preferences; utilities; utility measurement
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: David J Mott; Koonal K Shah; Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi; Nancy J Devlin; Oliver Rivero-Arias Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Juan M Ramos-Goñi; Marko Ogorevc; Simone Kreimeier; Kristina Ludwig; Wolfgang Greiner Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 5.725