Donna Rowen1, Anju D Keetharuth2, Edith Poku2, Ruth Wong2, Becky Pennington2, Allan Wailoo2. 1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK. Electronic address: d.rowen@sheffield.ac.uk. 2. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review examined the psychometric performance of 4 generic child- and adolescent-specific preference-based measures that can be used to produce utilities for child and adolescent health. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies reporting the psychometric performance of the Child Health Utility (CHU9D), EQ-5D-Y (3L or 5L), and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) or Mark 3 (HUI3) in children and/or adolescents. Data were extracted to assess known-group validity, convergent validity, responsiveness, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility. Data were extracted separately for the dimensions and utility index where this was reported. RESULTS: The review included 76 studies (CHU9D n = 12, EQ-5D-Y-3L n = 20, HUI2 n = 26,HUI3 n = 43), which varied considerably across conditions and sample size. EQ-5D-Y-3L had the largest amount of evidence of good psychometric performance in proportion to the number of studies examining performance. The majority of the evidence related to EQ-5D-Y-3L was based on dimensions. CHU9D was assessed in fewer studies, but the majority of studies found evidence of good psychometric performance. Evidence for HUI2 and HUI3 was more mixed, but the studies were more limited in sample size and statistical power, which was likely to have affected performance. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of published studies means that the evidence is based on studies across a range of countries, populations and conditions, using different study designs, different languages, different value sets and different statistical techniques. Evidence for CHU9D in particular is based on a limited number of studies. The findings raise concerns about the comparability of self-report and proxy-report responses to generate utility values for children and adolescents.
OBJECTIVE: This review examined the psychometric performance of 4 generic child- and adolescent-specific preference-based measures that can be used to produce utilities for child and adolescent health. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies reporting the psychometric performance of the Child Health Utility (CHU9D), EQ-5D-Y (3L or 5L), and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) or Mark 3 (HUI3) in children and/or adolescents. Data were extracted to assess known-group validity, convergent validity, responsiveness, reliability, acceptability, and feasibility. Data were extracted separately for the dimensions and utility index where this was reported. RESULTS: The review included 76 studies (CHU9D n = 12, EQ-5D-Y-3L n = 20, HUI2 n = 26,HUI3 n = 43), which varied considerably across conditions and sample size. EQ-5D-Y-3L had the largest amount of evidence of good psychometric performance in proportion to the number of studies examining performance. The majority of the evidence related to EQ-5D-Y-3L was based on dimensions. CHU9D was assessed in fewer studies, but the majority of studies found evidence of good psychometric performance. Evidence for HUI2 and HUI3 was more mixed, but the studies were more limited in sample size and statistical power, which was likely to have affected performance. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of published studies means that the evidence is based on studies across a range of countries, populations and conditions, using different study designs, different languages, different value sets and different statistical techniques. Evidence for CHU9D in particular is based on a limited number of studies. The findings raise concerns about the comparability of self-report and proxy-report responses to generate utility values for children and adolescents.
Authors: Jonathan L Rees; Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva; Epaminondas M Valsamis; David Beard; Andrew Carr; Gary S Collins; Stephen Brealey; Amar Rangan; Rita Santos; Belen Corbacho Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Chandana Guha; Rabia Khalid; Anita van Zwieten; Anna Francis; Carmel M Hawley; Allison Jauré; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Alistair R Mallard; Amelie Bernier-Jean; David W Johnson; Deirdre Hahn; Donna Reidlinger; Elaine M Pascoe; Elizabeth G Ryan; Fiona Mackie; Hugh J McCarthy; Jonathan C Craig; Julie Varghese; Charani Kiriwandeniya; Kirsten Howard; Nicholas G Larkins; Luke Macauley; Amanda Walker; Martin Howell; Michelle Irving; Patrina H Y Caldwell; Reginald Woodleigh; Shilpanjali Jesudason; Simon A Carter; Sean E Kennedy; Stephen I Alexander; Steven McTaggart; Germaine Wong Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.651
Authors: Thuy T Frakking; John Waugh; Christopher Carty; Alison Burmeister; Annabelle Marozza; Sue Hobbins; Michelle Kilah; Michael David; Lisa Kane; Susan McCormick; Hannah E Carter Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Dalia Dawoud; Alan Lamb; Alan Moore; Caroline Bregman; Ewa Rupniewska; Thomas Paling; Verena Wolfram; Rosemary E S Lovett; Ross Dent Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 3.440