Literature DB >> 31903522

Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?

Donna Rowen1, Oliver Rivero-Arias2, Nancy Devlin3, Julie Ratcliffe4.   

Abstract

Methods for measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation and health technology assessment in adult populations are well developed. In contrast, methods for assessing interventions for child and adolescent populations lack detailed guidelines, particularly regarding the valuation of health and quality of life in these age groups. This paper critically examines the methodological considerations involved in the valuation of child- and adolescent-specific health-related quality of life by existing preference-based measures. It also describes the methodological choices made in the valuation of existing generic preference-based measures developed with and/or applied in child and adolescent populations: AHUM, AQoL-6D, CHU9D, EQ-5D-Y, HUI2, HUI3, QWB, 16D and 17D. The approaches used to value existing child- and adolescent-specific generic preference-based measures vary considerably. While the choice of whose preferences and which perspective to use is a matter of normative debate and ultimately for decision by reimbursement agencies and policy makers, greater research around these issues would be informative and would enrich these discussions. Research can also inform the other methodological choices required in the valuation of child and adolescent health states. Gaps in research evidence are identified around the impact of the child described in health state valuation exercises undertaken by adults, including the possibility of informed preferences; the appropriateness and acceptability of valuation tasks for adolescents, in particular tasks involving the state 'dead'; anchoring of adolescent preferences; and the generation and use of combined adult and adolescent preferences.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 31903522     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00873-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  55 in total

1.  Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey.

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; Katherine Stevens; Jennifer Roberts; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values.

Authors:  Nick Bansback; John Brazier; Aki Tsuchiya; Aslam Anis
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Nothing About Us Without Us? A Comparison of Adolescent and Adult Health-State Values for the Child Health Utility-9D Using Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling.

Authors:  Julie Ratcliffe; Elisabeth Huynh; Katherine Stevens; John Brazier; Michael Sawyer; Terry Flynn
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents.

Authors:  S Saigal; B L Stoskopf; D Feeny; W Furlong; E Burrows; P L Rosenbaum; L Hoult
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Valuation of Child Health-Related Quality of Life in the United States.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Wolfgang Greiner; Derek S Brown; Bryce B Reeve
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D.

Authors:  Nora Wille; Xavier Badia; Gouke Bonsel; Kristina Burström; Gulia Cavrini; Nancy Devlin; Ann-Charlotte Egmar; Wolfgang Greiner; Narcis Gusi; Michael Herdman; Jennifer Jelsma; Paul Kind; Luciana Scalone; Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study.

Authors:  Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer; Nora Wille; Xavier Badia; Gouke Bonsel; Kristina Burström; Gulia Cavrini; Nancy Devlin; Ann-Charlotte Egmar; Narcis Gusi; Michael Herdman; Jennifer Jelsma; Paul Kind; Pedro R Olivares; Luciana Scalone; Wolfgang Greiner
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04-17       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines.

Authors:  M M Versteegh; W B F Brouwer
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2016-07-31       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y.

Authors:  Paul Kind; Kristina Klose; Narcis Gusi; Pedro R Olivares; Wolfgang Greiner
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-04-19       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities.

Authors:  Joseph Kwon; Sung Wook Kim; Wendy J Ungar; Kate Tsiplova; Jason Madan; Stavros Petrou
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-10-07       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  29 in total

1.  Exploring the Issues of Valuing Child and Adolescent Health States Using a Mixed Sample of Adolescents and Adults.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; Clara Mukuria; Philip A Powell; Allan Wailoo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  A modified video-feedback intervention for carers of foster children aged 6 years and under with reactive attachment disorder: a feasibility study and pilot RCT.

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

3.  Cost-effectiveness of a transdiagnostic psychotherapy program for youth with common mental health problems.

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

4.  Valuing EQ-5D-Y: the current state of play.

Authors:  N Devlin; T Pan; S Kreimeier; J Verstraete; E Stolk; K Rand; M Herdman
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.077

5.  Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best-Worst Scaling.

Authors:  Kim Dalziel; Max Catchpool; Borja García-Lorenzo; Inigo Gorostiza; Richard Norman; Oliver Rivero-Arias
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?

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

7.  Valuation Survey of EQ-5D-Y Based on the International Common Protocol: Development of a Value Set in Japan.

Authors:  Takeru Shiroiwa; Shunya Ikeda; Shinichi Noto; Takashi Fukuda; Elly Stolk
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  The longitudinal validity of proxy-reported CHU9D.

Authors:  Rasmus Trap Wolf; Julie Ratcliffe; Gang Chen; Pia Jeppesen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-02-13       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 9.  Data Needs for Economic Evaluations of Screening in Pediatric Primary Care: A Research Framework.

Authors:  Scott D Grosse; Alex R Kemper; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 9.703

10.  'Like holding the axe on who should live or not': adolescents' and adults' perceptions of valuing children's health states using a standardised valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L.

Authors:  Mimmi Åström; Helen Conte; Jenny Berg; Kristina Burström
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 3.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.