Literature DB >> 29569017

A review of preference-based measures for the assessment of quality of life in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy.

Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa1, Gang Chen2, Elisabeth Huynh3, Remo Russo4,5, Julie Ratcliffe3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the psychometric properties and suitability for use within the context of cerebral palsy research in children and adolescents of generic preference-based outcome measures (PROMs).
METHODS: Nine electronic databases were searched in this systematic review. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist were used to measure the psychometric properties of the PROMs. A meta-analysis was used to pool correlation coefficients for convergent validity using the Schmidt-Hunter method. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic (I2).
RESULTS: Four preference-based PROMs were identified from eight studies: Health Utilities Index-Mark 2 and 3 (HUI-2 and HUI-3, respectively), the Assessment Quality of Life-4 dimension (AQoL-4D) and the EuroQol-5 dimension 3 level (EQ-5D-3L). Only the HUI system was primarily developed for application with children/adolescents though health-state values for scoring the PROM were elicited from adults. The HUI-3 covered the most relevant constructs though it excludes important modules of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) such as activity limitations and participation restrictions. In terms of psychometric properties, evidence was presented for only five of COSMIN measurement properties: reliability (HUI3), measurement error (HUI-3), content validity (HUI-2 and HUI-3), Hypotheses testing (HUI-3 and AQoL-4D) and criterion validity (HUI-3). No papers reported on internal consistency, structural validity, cross-cultural validity or responsiveness of the preference-based measures in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy.
CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the dearth in studies using preference-based PROMs to measure HRQOL associated with cerebral palsy in children and adolescents. The HUI-3 demonstrated the strongest psychometric properties, though it does not cover all dimensions relevant to this population.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adolescent; Cerebral palsy; Child; Instruments; Quality of life; Utility

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29569017     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1837-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  78 in total

Review 1.  Paediatric quality of life instruments: a review of the impact of the conceptual framework on outcomes.

Authors:  Elise Davis; Elizabeth Waters; Andrew Mackinnon; Dinah Reddihough; H Kerr Graham; Ozlem Mehmet-Radji; Roslyn Boyd
Journal:  Dev Med Child Neurol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.449

Review 2.  A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Ayse Kuspinar; Nancy E Mayo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Measuring health state preferences for hemophilia: development of a disease-specific utility instrument.

Authors:  J Wasserman; L A Aday; C E Begley; C Ahn; D R Lairson
Journal:  Haemophilia       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.287

4.  Child or family assessed measures of activity performance and participation for children with cerebral palsy: a structured review.

Authors:  C Morris; J J Kurinczuk; R Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Child Care Health Dev       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.508

5.  Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation in adolescence: an assessment of the practicality and validity of the child health utility 9D in the Australian adolescent population.

Authors:  Katherine Stevens; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 5.725

6.  The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  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

8.  Whose values in health? An empirical comparison of the application of adolescent and adult values for the CHU-9D and AQOL-6D in the Australian adolescent general population.

Authors:  Julie Ratcliffe; Katherine Stevens; Terry Flynn; John Brazier; Michael G Sawyer
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Adolescents with cerebral palsy: stability in measurement of quality of life and health-related quality of life over 1 year.

Authors:  Michael H Livingston; Peter L Rosenbaum
Journal:  Dev Med Child Neurol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.449

10.  Cost-effectiveness of intrathecal baclofen therapy for the treatment of severe spasticity associated with cerebral palsy.

Authors:  Gregory de Lissovoy; Louis S Matza; Hannah Green; Meghan Werner; Terence Edgar
Journal:  J Child Neurol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.987

View more
  3 in total

1.  Utility Values for the CP-6D, a Cerebral Palsy-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument, Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Mina Bahrampour; Richard Norman; Joshua Byrnes; Martin Downes; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Systematic review of 29 self-report instruments for assessing quality of life in older adults receiving aged care services.

Authors:  Joyce Siette; Gilbert Thomas Knaggs; Yvonne Zurynski; Julie Ratcliffe; Laura Dodds; Johanna Westbrook
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 3.  Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in congenital mobility impairment: a systematic review of validity and responsiveness.

Authors:  Nathan Bray; Llinos Haf Spencer; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2020-04-21
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.