Jyoti Khadka1, Joseph Kwon2, Stavros Petrou2, Emily Lancsar3, Julie Ratcliffe4. 1. Health and Social Care Economics Group, College of Nursing and Health Science, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia; Institute for Choice, Business School, University of South Australia, South Australia, Australia; Registry of Senior Australians, Healthy Ageing Research Consortium, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: Jyoti.khadka@flinders.edu.au. 2. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 3. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, School of Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. 4. Health and Social Care Economics Group, College of Nursing and Health Science, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence surrounding utilities for health states, derived either directly from the application of preference-based valuation methods or indirectly from the application of preference-based quality of life instruments, is increasingly being utilised to inform the cost-effectiveness of child health interventions. Proxy (parent or health professional) assessments are common in this area. This study sought to investigate the degree of convergence in childhood utilities generated directly or indirectly within dyad child and proxy assessments. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search strategy conducted across six search engines (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsychoINFO, EconLit, CINAHL and Cochrane Library). Original peer-reviewed articles that reported utilities derived directly or indirectly using simultaneous dyad child and proxy assessments were extracted. Mean and median utilities, correlation coefficients and levels of agreement were extracted, catalogued and assessed. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies that reported utilities for two or more respondent types were identified. Of these, 29 studies reported dyad childhood self-report and proxy utilities whilst six studies reported levels of agreement and/or correlations only without documenting overall utilities. Proxy assessment was most often conducted by parents with the HUI3 representing the most commonly applied instrument across a range of health conditions. The utilities derived from child and parent proxy assessment were bidirectional with parental proxies tending to underestimate and health professional proxies tending to overestimate relative to child self-reports. Inter-rater agreement between child self-reports and parent-proxy reports were poorer for more subjective attributes (cognition, emotion and pain), relative to physical attributes (mobility, self-care, speech, vision) of health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Childhood utilities derived from children or proxies are not interchangeable. The choice of self or proxy assessor may have potentially significant implications for economic evaluations of child health interventions.
PURPOSE: Evidence surrounding utilities for health states, derived either directly from the application of preference-based valuation methods or indirectly from the application of preference-based quality of life instruments, is increasingly being utilised to inform the cost-effectiveness of child health interventions. Proxy (parent or health professional) assessments are common in this area. This study sought to investigate the degree of convergence in childhood utilities generated directly or indirectly within dyad child and proxy assessments. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search strategy conducted across six search engines (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsychoINFO, EconLit, CINAHL and Cochrane Library). Original peer-reviewed articles that reported utilities derived directly or indirectly using simultaneous dyad child and proxy assessments were extracted. Mean and median utilities, correlation coefficients and levels of agreement were extracted, catalogued and assessed. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies that reported utilities for two or more respondent types were identified. Of these, 29 studies reported dyad childhood self-report and proxy utilities whilst six studies reported levels of agreement and/or correlations only without documenting overall utilities. Proxy assessment was most often conducted by parents with the HUI3 representing the most commonly applied instrument across a range of health conditions. The utilities derived from child and parent proxy assessment were bidirectional with parental proxies tending to underestimate and health professional proxies tending to overestimate relative to child self-reports. Inter-rater agreement between child self-reports and parent-proxy reports were poorer for more subjective attributes (cognition, emotion and pain), relative to physical attributes (mobility, self-care, speech, vision) of health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Childhood utilities derived from children or proxies are not interchangeable. The choice of self or proxy assessor may have potentially significant implications for economic evaluations of child health interventions.
Authors: Paula Oliveira; Eloise Stevens; Lydia Barge; Julie Comyn; Kirsty Langley; Paul Ramchandani; Barry Wright; Matt Woolgar; Eilis Kennedy; Sarah Byford; James Shearer; Stephen Scott; Jane Barlow; Danya Glaser; Rob Senior; Peter Fonagy; Pasco Fearon Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 4.106
Authors: Rasmus Trap Wolf; Pia Jeppesen; Mette Maria Agner Pedersen; Louise Berg Puggaard; Mikael Thastum; Niels Bilenberg; Per Hove Thomsen; Wendy K Silverman; Kerstin Jessica Plessen; Simon-Peter Neumer; Christoph U Correll; Anne Katrine Pagsberg; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Nigel J Hall; Frances C Sherratt; Simon Eaton; Isabel Reading; Erin Walker; Maria Chorozoglou; Lucy Beasant; Wendy Wood; Michael Stanton; Harriet J Corbett; Dean Rex; Natalie Hutchings; Elizabeth Dixon; Simon Grist; William Van't Hoff; Esther Crawley; Jane Blazeby; Bridget Young Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Matthew Crocker; Claire Hutchinson; Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa; Ruth Walker; Gang Chen; Julie Ratcliffe Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 3.186