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?

Rowen, Donna; Rivero‐Arias, Oliver; Devlin, Nancy; Ratcliffe, Julie

doi:10.1007/s40273-019-00873-7

Cited by 95 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The BWS method does not automatically provide values that are anchored to the 0-1 (dead-full health) scale as is required for utility measurement. This provides a challenge and means a separate task is required to anchor the BWS responses onto a 0-1 scale as outlined in more detail in Rowen et al [15,26].…”

Section: Best-worst Scaling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This existing research comparing adult and adolescent preferences was conducted using the CHU-9D instrument and it is unknown whether this result is also valid for other child instruments such as the EQ-5D Youth version (EQ-5D-Y). The feasibility and validity of adolescent preferences is largely unknown, as is the impact of adolescent, adult proxy (adults imagining a child) and adult study perspectives on the preferences obtained for other child instruments [15,16]. It is clear that the choice of values has important implications for utility estimation and resulting policy and practice decisions [12].…”

Section: Survey Design and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Profiles for the BWS exercise were generated using a full factorial design (3 5 ) of the 243 health states randomly divided into 20 blocks (ESM Table 1). Each block consisted of an even number of mild, moderate and severe states, selected based on the sum of the five-digit number representing a particular health state (mild states sum of 6-9, moderate states sum of 10-12 and severe states sum of [13][14][15]. Nineteen blocks included 13 BWS tasks with the remaining block including 14 tasks.…”

Section: Survey Design and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers have been slow to develop a scoring algorithm for the EQ-5D-Y. There has been a strong status quo for using adult preference as the normative sample and a paucity of research regarding whether adolescents' preferences should be included [15]. In addition, we know little about how current preference elicitation methods work for children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Best-worst Scaling Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Survey Design and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Survey Design and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…j Family alcohol consumption: 0 = Mother, father and siblings do not binge drink; 1 = Mother or father or siblings binge drink occasionally or more frequently; 2 = Two members of the family (mother, father or siblings) binge drink occasionally or more frequently; 3 = Mother, father and siblings binge drink occasionally or more frequently For the CUA, the outcome measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), calculated by means of the EQ utility index on the basis of the answers given by the adolescents to the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. We considered the EQ-5D-5L (adult version) as the appropriate questionnaire version, being this indicated from the age of 15 [24]. In addition, there is no a value set for EQ-5D-Y and then, it interferes with the calculation of QALYs [20].…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a web-based computer-tailored intervention for prevention of binge drinking among Spanish adolescents

Vargas-Martínez

Lima‐Serrano

Trapero‐Bertran

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWorldwide, binge drinking (BD) today follows being a public health concern among adolescents. This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a web-based computer-tailored intervention to prevent BD in adolescence.MethodsThe sample was drawn from a study evaluating the Alerta Alcohol programme. The population consisted of adolescents aged 15–19. Decision tree analysis was used to estimate costs and health outcomes, as measured by number of BD occasions and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Ratios were also calculated from National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspective and for a time horizon of four months. Multivariate deterministic sensitivity analysis of best/worst scenarios by subgroups was used to account for uncertainty.ResultsThe intervention was dominant from the societal perspective resulting in savings of €7,986.37 by one BD occasion averted per month. With regard to Incremental Cost-Utility Ratios, the intervention resulted in an incremental cost of €71.05 per QALY gained from NHS perspective and this was dominant, from societal perspective, resulting in savings of €34,126.64 per QALY gained in comparison with the control group. Subgroup analyses showed that the intervention resulted dominant for girls from both perspectives, and for those who were older (17 years or more) from NHS perspective.ConclusionComputer-tailored feedback is a cost-effective way to reduce BD and to increase QALYs among adolescents. However, long-term follow-up would probably be needed to capture major changes both in reduction of BD and in increasing of health-related quality of life.Trial registration(ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03288896. Registration date: September 20, 2017. “Retrospectively registered”.

show abstract

Problematic cost–utility analysis of interventions for behavior problems in children and adolescents

IJzendoorn

Bakermans‐Kranenburg

2020

New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-utility analyses are slowly becoming part of randomized control trials evaluating physical and mental health treatments and (preventive) interventions in child and adolescent development. The British National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, for example, insists on the use of gains in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) to compute the "value for money" of interventions. But what counts as a gain in quality of life? For one of the most widely used instruments, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions scale (EQ-5D), QALYs are estimated by healthy individuals who provide utility scores for specific health states, assuming that the best life is a life without self-experienced problems in five domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. The worst imaginable outcome is defined as "a lot of problems" in each of these five domains. The impact of the individual's problems on the social network is not weighted, and important social-developmental domains (externalizing problems, social competence) are missing. Current costutility computations based on EQ-5D favor physical health over mental health, and they rely on adult weights for child and adolescent quality of life. Thus, a level playing field is absent, and developmental expertise is sorely missing. K E Y W O R D S cost-utility analysis, interventions, children, mental health, Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALY), EuroQol 5 Dimensions scale (EQ-5D), critical review This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

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?

Abstract: This is a repository copy of 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?.

Cited by 95 publications

References 69 publications

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

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

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a web-based computer-tailored intervention for prevention of binge drinking among Spanish adolescents

Problematic cost–utility analysis of interventions for behavior problems in children and adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About