Literature DB >> 31974830

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

Kim Dalziel1, Max Catchpool1, Borja García-Lorenzo2,3,4, Inigo Gorostiza4,5, Richard Norman6, Oliver Rivero-Arias7,8,9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The measurement and valuation of health-related quality of life for and by young people are increasingly important, yet research on the impact of study perspective and validity of preferences obtained from young populations remains limited.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and validity of collecting EQ-5D Youth version (EQ-5D-Y) preferences from adolescents, adults, and adults from a child perspective.
METHODS: A profile case best-worst scaling (BWS) online survey was administered to representative Australian and Spanish adult (age ≥ 18 years) and child (age 11-17 years) samples. Adults were told to either answer from their own perspective or for a hypothetical 10-year-old child. Marginal best- and worst-choice frequencies, analysis of dominant choices, self-reported difficulty completing the tasks, and time to complete tasks were used to determine the validity of responses.
RESULTS: In Australia, 2134 adults and 1010 adolescents completed the survey. In Spain, 2007 adults and 1000 adolescents completed it. Analysis of marginal choice frequencies and dominant choices indicated that the pattern of responses between adolescents and adults was similar. For Australian respondents, having no mobility problems was rated as best by adolescents, while adults rated having no pain and discomfort as 'best'. In Spain, both adults and adolescents rated no pain or discomfort as 'best'. Australian adolescents rated very worried, sad or unhappy as 'worst', while Spanish adolescents, Spanish adults and Australian adults rated a lot of pain and discomfort as 'worst'.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest preferences from adolescents using direct BWS are valid. Our descriptive analysis also suggest that there are age-related and country-specific differences in elicitation values for the EQ-5D-Y.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31974830     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00884-9

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


  26 in total

Review 1.  Researching health inequalities in adolescents: the development of the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) family affluence scale.

Authors:  Candace Currie; Michal Molcho; William Boyce; Bjørn Holstein; Torbjørn Torsheim; Matthias Richter
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-01-07       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; John Brazier; Ben Van Hout
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 2.583

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.  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

5.  Valuing Child Health Utility 9D Health States with Young Adults: Insights from a Time Trade Off Study.

Authors:  Julie Ratcliffe; Gang Chen; Katherine Stevens; Sandra Bradley; Leah Couzner; John Brazier; Michael Sawyer; Rachel Roberts; Elisabeth Huynh; Terry Flynn
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.561

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Measuring Health Utilities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Dominic Thorrington; Ken Eames
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 3.240

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.  Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI.

Authors:  Brendan Mulhern; Louise Longworth; John Brazier; Donna Rowen; Nick Bansback; Nancy Devlin; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  8 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.  Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children's Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Cate Bailey; Martin Howell; Kirsten Howard; Rosalie Viney; Rakhee Raghunandan; Amber Salisbury; Gang Chen; Joanna Coast; Jonathan C Craig; Nancy J Devlin; Elisabeth Huynh; Emily Lancsar; Brendan J Mulhern; Richard Norman; Stavros Petrou; Julie Ratcliffe; Deborah J Street
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 4.558

3.  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

4.  EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia.

Authors:  Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Marko Ogorevc
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Comparison of Adult and Adolescent Preferences Toward EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States.

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

6.  Exploring EQ-5D-Y-3L Experience-Based VAS Values Derived Among Adolescents.

Authors:  Mimmi Åström; Ola Rolfson; Kristina Burström
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; Gábor Ruzsa; Alex Bató; Zhihao Yang; Aureliano Paolo Finch; Valentin Brodszky
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 4.558

8.  Adolescent valuation of CARIES-QC-U: a child-centred preference-based measure of dental caries.

Authors:  H J Rogers; J Sagabiel; Z Marshman; H D Rodd; D Rowen
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.186

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.