IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v157y2016icp48-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm

Author

Listed:
  • Ratcliffe, Julie
  • Huynh, Elisabeth
  • Chen, Gang
  • Stevens, Katherine
  • Swait, Joffre
  • Brazier, John
  • Sawyer, Michael
  • Roberts, Rachel
  • Flynn, Terry

Abstract

In contrast to the recent proliferation of studies incorporating ordinal methods to generate health state values from adults, to date relatively few studies have utilised ordinal methods to generate health state values from adolescents. This paper reports upon a study to apply profile case best worst scaling methods to derive a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm for the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D), a generic preference based instrument that has been specifically designed for the estimation of quality adjusted life years for the economic evaluation of health care treatment and preventive programs targeted at young people. A survey was developed for administration in an on-line format in which consenting community based Australian adolescents aged 11–17 years (N = 1982) indicated the best and worst features of a series of 10 health states derived from the CHU9D descriptive system. The data were analyzed using latent class conditional logit models to estimate values (part worth utilities) for each level of the nine attributes relating to the CHU9D. A marginal utility matrix was then estimated to generate an adolescent-specific scoring algorithm on the full health = 1 and dead = 0 scale required for the calculation of QALYs. It was evident that different decision processes were being used in the best and worst choices. Whilst respondents appeared readily able to choose ‘best’ attribute levels for the CHU9D health states, a large amount of random variability and indeed different decision rules were evident for the choice of ‘worst’ attribute levels, to the extent that the best and worst data should not be pooled from the statistical perspective. The optimal adolescent-specific scoring algorithm was therefore derived using data obtained from the best choices only. The study provides important insights into the use of profile case best worst scaling methods to generate health state values with adolescent populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:157:y:2016:i:c:p:48-59
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616301423
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    3. Hensher, David A., 2012. "Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 480-486.
    4. Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe, 2015. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments for Paediatric Populations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(10), pages 1013-1028, October.
    5. Flynn, Terry Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1957-1965, June.
    6. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    8. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    9. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, November.
    10. Emily Lancsar & Joffre Swait, 2014. "Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 951-965, October.
    11. Julie Ratcliffe & Leah Couzner & Terry Flynn & Michael Sawyer & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess, 2011. "Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 15-27, January.
    12. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    13. Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Katherine Stevens & Sandra Bradley & Leah Couzner & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Rachel Roberts & Elisabeth Huynh & Terry Flynn, 2015. "Valuing Child Health Utility 9D Health States with Young Adults: Insights from a Time Trade Off Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 485-492, October.
    14. Julie Ratcliffe & Terry Flynn & Frances Terlich & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer, 2012. "Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 713-727, August.
    15. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    16. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Ben Van Hout, 2015. "A Comparison of Methods for Converting DCE Values onto the Full Health-Dead QALY Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 328-340, April.
    17. Swait, Joffre & Bernardino, Adriana, 2000. "Distinguishing taste variation from error structure in discrete choice data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-15, January.
    18. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Morikawa, Takayuki & Shiroishi, Fumiaki, 1992. "Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 149-164, March.
    19. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ernest H. Law & Annika L. Pickard & Anika Kaczynski & A. Simon Pickard, 2017. "Choice Blindness and Health-State Choices among Adolescents and Adults," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 680-687, August.
    2. Richard De Abreu Lourenço & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Jason J. Ong & Julie Ratcliffe & Jo Watson & Esther Willing & Elisabeth Huynh, 2021. "Giving a Voice to Marginalised Groups for Health Care Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 5-10, January.
    3. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    4. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Tosin Lambe & Emma Frew & Natalie J. Ives & Rebecca L. Woolley & Carole Cummins & Elizabeth A. Brettell & Emma N. Barsoum & Nicholas J. A. Webb, 2018. "Mapping the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) Generic Core Scales onto the Child Health Utility Index–9 Dimension (CHU-9D) Score for Economic Evaluation in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 451-465, April.
    6. Tonya Moen Hansen & Knut Stavem & Kim Rand, 2023. "Completing the time trade-off with respondents who are older, in poorer health or with an immigrant background in an EQ-5D-5L valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 877-884, August.
    7. Mo Zhou & Winter Maxwell Thayer & John F. P. Bridges, 2018. "Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 175-187, February.
    8. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    9. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.
    10. Huang, Li & Devlin, Nancy & Chen, Gang & Dalziel, Kim, 2024. "A happiness approach to valuing health states for children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    11. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    12. Karin Dam Petersen & Gang Chen & Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent Populations: An Empirical Comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQLTM 4.0 Short Form 15," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 29-37, February.
    13. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    14. Rajan Sharma & Yuanyuan Gu & Teresa Y. C. Ching & Vivienne Marnane & Bonny Parkinson, 2019. "Economic Evaluations of Childhood Hearing Loss Screening Programmes: A Systematic Review and Critique," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 331-357, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Huynh, Elisabeth & Coast, Joanna & Rose, John & Kinghorn, Philip & Flynn, Terry, 2017. "Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 114-128.
    3. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Julie Ratcliffe & Elisabeth Huynh & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Terry Flynn, 2016. "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," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 486-496, April.
    5. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    6. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    8. Joseph Kwon & Louise Freijser & Elisabeth Huynh & Martin Howell & Gang Chen & Kamran Khan & Shahd Daher & Nia Roberts & Conrad Harrison & Sarah Smith & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Emily Lancsar & , 2022. "Systematic Review of Conceptual, Age, Measurement and Valuation Considerations for Generic Multidimensional Childhood Patient-Reported Outcome Measures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 379-431, April.
    9. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    10. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    11. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    12. Julie Ratcliffe & Terry Flynn & Frances Terlich & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer, 2012. "Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 713-727, August.
    13. Huang, Li & Devlin, Nancy & Chen, Gang & Dalziel, Kim, 2024. "A happiness approach to valuing health states for children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    14. Donna Rowen & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin & Julie Ratcliffe, 2020. "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?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 325-340, April.
    15. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Edward J. D. Webb & John O’Dwyer & David Meads & Paul Kind & Penny Wright, 2020. "Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 787-800, July.
    17. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    18. Joseph Kwon & Sung Wook Kim & Wendy J. Ungar & Kate Tsiplova & Jason Madan & Stavros Petrou, 2018. "A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 277-305, April.
    19. Karin Dam Petersen & Gang Chen & Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent Populations: An Empirical Comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQLTM 4.0 Short Form 15," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 29-37, February.
    20. Axel Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Johnson, 2015. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:157:y:2016:i:c:p:48-59. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.