IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0135672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Dominic Thorrington
  • Ken Eames

Abstract

Background: The objective of this review was to evaluate the use of all direct and indirect methods used to estimate health utilities in both children and adolescents. Utilities measured pre- and post-intervention are combined with the time over which health states are experienced to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) estimate the cost-effectiveness of health technologies based on their costs and benefits using QALYs as a measure of benefit. The accurate measurement of QALYs is dependent on using appropriate methods to elicit health utilities. Objective: We sought studies that measured health utilities directly from patients or their proxies. We did not exclude those studies that also included adults in the analysis, but excluded those studies focused only on adults. Methods and Findings: We evaluated 90 studies from a total of 1,780 selected from the databases. 47 (52%) studies were CUAs incorporated into randomised clinical trials; 23 (26%) were health-state utility assessments; 8 (9%) validated methods and 12 (13%) compared existing or new methods. 22 unique direct or indirect calculation methods were used a total of 137 times. Direct calculation through standard gamble, time trade-off and visual analogue scale was used 32 times. The EuroQol EQ-5D was the most frequently-used single method, selected for 41 studies. 15 of the methods used were generic methods and the remaining 7 were disease-specific. 48 of the 90 studies (53%) used some form of proxy, with 26 (29%) using proxies exclusively to estimate health utilities. Conclusions: Several child- and adolescent-specific methods are still being developed and validated, leaving many studies using methods that have not been designed or validated for use in children or adolescents. Several studies failed to justify using proxy respondents rather than administering the methods directly to the patients. Only two studies examined missing responses to the methods administered with respect to the patients’ ages.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominic Thorrington & Ken Eames, 2015. "Measuring Health Utilities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0135672
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135672
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135672&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0135672?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stavros Petrou, 2003. "Methodological issues raised by preference‐based approaches to measuring the health status of children," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 697-702, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lisa Prosser & Scott Grosse & Eve Wittenberg, 2012. "Health Utility Elicitation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 83-86, February.
    2. Clazien Bouwmans & Annemarie Kolk & Mark Oppe & Saskia Schawo & Elly Stolk & Michel Agthoven & Jan Buitelaar & LeonaHakkaart Roijen, 2014. "Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D and the KIDSCREEN-10 in children with ADHD," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 967-977, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Krupnick, Alan & Hoffmann, Sandra & Adamowicz, Wictor, 2005. "Economic Uncertainties in Valuing Reductions in Children's Environmental Health Risks," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-27, Resources for the Future.
    5. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    6. Azusa Sato & Joan Costa-Font, 2014. "The Hedonic Procedural Effect of Traditional Medicines," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1061-1084, October.
    7. Eckermann, Simon & Dawber, James & Yeatman, Heather & Quinsey, Karen & Morris, Darcy, 2014. "Evaluating return on investment in a school based health promotion and prevention program: The investment multiplier for the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden National Program," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 103-112.
    8. Stavros Petrou & Emil Kupek, 2009. "Estimating Preference-Based Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Utility Scores for Childhood Conditions in England and Scotland," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 291-303, May.
    9. Rishworth, Andrea & Cao, Tiffany & Niraula, Ashika & Wilson, Kathi, 2023. "Navigating the quality-of-life impacts of a chronic inflammatory disease (CID) among South Asian children and parents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    10. 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.
    11. R. Trafford Crump & Lauren M. Beverung & Ryan Lau & Rita Sieracki & Mateo Nicholson, 2017. "Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of Direct Elicitation of Children’s Preferences for Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 314-326, April.
    12. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    13. Khadka, Jyoti & Kwon, Joseph & Petrou, Stavros & Lancsar, Emily & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Mind the (inter-rater) gap. An investigation of self-reported versus proxy-reported assessments in the derivation of childhood utility values for economic evaluation: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    14. Ungar, Wendy J. & Mirabelli, Cara & Cousins, Martha & Boydell, Katherine M., 2006. "A qualitative analysis of a dyad approach to health-related quality of life measurement in children with asthma," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(9), pages 2354-2366, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Gillian A. Lancaster, 2009. "Statistical issues in the assessment of health outcomes in children: a methodological review," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(4), pages 707-727, October.
    17. Wendy Ungar & Katherine Boydell & Sharon Dell & Brian Feldman & Deborah Marshall & Andrew Willan & James Wright, 2012. "A Parent-Child Dyad Approach to the Assessment of Health Status and Health-Related Quality of Life in Children with Asthma," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 697-712, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0135672. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.