Jim G A Retra1, Brigitte A B Essers2, Manuela A Joore1,3, Silvia M A A Evers3,4, Carmen D Dirksen1,3. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Brigitte.essers@mumc.nl. 3. Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Examine whether the use of different ages has an impact on the valuation of EQ-5D-Y health states for a hypothetical child or adolescent. METHODS: A survey was administered during regular classes among a convenience sample of university students in the Netherlands. Respondents first valued 6 EQ-5D-Y health states (2 mild, 2 moderate, 2 severe) describing a hypothetical child/adolescent of a certain age on a visual analogue scale (VAS). After 1 h respondents valued the same six health states again but this time the age of the child was different. Age differed between 4, 10 and 16 year old. RESULTS: Number of respondents was 311. No significant differences in valuation of the six health states were found between the age of 10 and 16. One moderate health state was valued significantly better for a 4-year old compared to a 10 and a 16 year old. The same applied for one severe health state that was valued higher for a 4-year old compared to a 16-year old. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that, except for one moderate and one severe health state, other EQ-5D-Y health states were not valued significantly different when description of age differed. It is possible that problems in specific health domains are considered more severe for older children/adolescents compared to younger children who might still be dependent on their caregivers. Future research should examine whether our findings are also present in a broader set of EQ-5D-Y health states, with a choice-based method like TTO or DCE, and a more heterogeneous sample.
BACKGROUND: Examine whether the use of different ages has an impact on the valuation of EQ-5D-Y health states for a hypothetical child or adolescent. METHODS: A survey was administered during regular classes among a convenience sample of university students in the Netherlands. Respondents first valued 6 EQ-5D-Y health states (2 mild, 2 moderate, 2 severe) describing a hypothetical child/adolescent of a certain age on a visual analogue scale (VAS). After 1 h respondents valued the same six health states again but this time the age of the child was different. Age differed between 4, 10 and 16 year old. RESULTS: Number of respondents was 311. No significant differences in valuation of the six health states were found between the age of 10 and 16. One moderate health state was valued significantly better for a 4-year old compared to a 10 and a 16 year old. The same applied for one severe health state that was valued higher for a 4-year old compared to a 16-year old. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that, except for one moderate and one severe health state, other EQ-5D-Y health states were not valued significantly different when description of age differed. It is possible that problems in specific health domains are considered more severe for older children/adolescents compared to younger children who might still be dependent on their caregivers. Future research should examine whether our findings are also present in a broader set of EQ-5D-Y health states, with a choice-based method like TTO or DCE, and a more heterogeneous sample.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescent; Child; EQ-5D-Y; Health state valuation
Authors: Simone Kreimeier; Mark Oppe; Juan M Ramos-Goñi; Amanda Cole; Nancy Devlin; Michael Herdman; Brendan Mulhern; Koonal K Shah; Elly Stolk; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Wolfgang Greiner Journal: Value Health Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Lisa A Prosser; Katherine Payne; Donna Rusinak; Ping Shi; Timothy Uyeki; Mark Messonnier Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Daniel Eisenberg; Gary L Freed; Matthew M Davis; Dianne Singer; Lisa A Prosser Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 2.561