IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i1p56-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Kristina Secnik

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana)

  • Louis S. Matza

    (MEDTAP International, Inc, Bethesda, Maryland)

  • Suzi Cottrell

    (M-TAG Ltd, London, United Kingdom)

  • Eric Edgell

    (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana)

  • Dominic Tilden

    (M-TAG Ltd, London, United Kingdom)

  • Sally Mannix

    (MEDTAP International, Inc, Bethesda, Maryland)

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to use standard gamble (SG) utility interviews to assess parent preferences for health states of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods. The study was conducted in August 2003 in London, England. Parents (N = 83) of children diagnosed with ADHD completed SG utility interviews, rating their child’s current health and 14 hypothetical health states describing untreated ADHD and ADHD treated with a nonstimulant, immediate-release stimulant, or extended-release stimulant. Raw temporary utilities ranging from 0 (worst health) to 1 (best health) were adjusted to a chronic utility scale ranging from 0 (death) to 1 (best health) using a linear transformation. Parents rated the severity of their children’s ADHD symptoms using the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS) and their children’s health-related quality of life using the EuroQol EQ-5D. Results. Raw and adjusted SG ratings of hypothetical health states ranged from 0.63-0.90 and 0.88-0.96, respectively. Parents’ raw SG scores of their child’s current health state (mean = 0.72) were significantly correlated with inattentive, hyperactive, and overall ADHD symptoms (r = -0.25, -0.27, -0.27; P

Suggested Citation

  • Kristina Secnik & Louis S. Matza & Suzi Cottrell & Eric Edgell & Dominic Tilden & Sally Mannix, 2005. "Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 56-70, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:1:p:56-70
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04273140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04273140
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04273140?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. Johnston, Katharine & Brown, Jackie & Gerard, Karen & O'Hanlon, Moira & Morton, Alison, 1998. "Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 213-222, July.
    2. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    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. Agota Szende & Caroline Schaefer, 2006. "A taxonomy of health utility assessment methods and the role for uncertainty analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(2), pages 147-151, June.
    2. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    3. Cate Bailey & Martin Howell & Rakhee Raghunandan & Amber Salisbury & Gang Chen & Joanna Coast & Jonathan C. Craig & Nancy J. Devlin & Elisabeth Huynh & Emily Lancsar & Brendan J. Mulhern & Richard Nor, 2022. "Preference Elicitation Techniques Used in Valuing Children’s Health-Related Quality-of-Life: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(7), pages 663-698, July.
    4. Benjamin M. Craig & Wolfgang Greiner & Derek S. Brown & Bryce B. Reeve, 2016. "Valuation of Child Health‐Related Quality of Life in the United States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 768-777, June.
    5. Karine Chevreul & Morgane Michel & Karen Berg Brigham & Julio López-Bastida & Renata Linertová & Juan Oliva-Moreno & Pedro Serrano-Aguilar & Manuel Posada-de-la-Paz & Domenica Taruscio & Arrigo Schiep, 2016. "Social/economic costs and health-related quality of life in patients with cystic fibrosis in Europe," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(1), pages 7-18, April.

    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. Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2002. "Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 53-64, February.
    2. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    3. Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    4. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    6. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    7. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    8. J. Shannon Swan & William F. Lawrence & Jessica Roy, 2006. "Process Utility in Breast Biopsy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 347-359, July.
    9. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    10. Sylvia J.T. Jansen & Anne M. Stiggelbout & Peter P. Wakker & Marianne A. Nooij & Evert M. Noordijk & Job Kievit, 2000. "Unstable Preferences:," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 62-71, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Dirksen, Carmen D. & Ament, AndreJ. H. & Go, Peter M. N., 1996. "Diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands. Stimulating and restraining factors," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 91-104, August.
    13. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2014. "Response to Letter to Editor: Capturing Disutility from Waiting Time," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 421-422, April.
    14. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    15. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    16. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2013. "Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 677-691, August.
    17. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Jing Shen & Matthew Breckons & Luke Vale & Robert Pickard, 2019. "Using Time Trade-Off Methods to Elicit Short-Term Utilities Associated with Treatments for Bulbar Urethral Stricture," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 551-558, December.
    19. Steven Alberts & Tiffany Yu & Robert Behrens & Lindsay Renfro & Geetika Srivastava & Gamini Soori & Shaker Dakhil & Rex Mowat & John Kuebler & George Kim & Miroslaw Mazurczak & John Hornberger, 2014. "Comparative Economics of a 12-Gene Assay for Predicting Risk of Recurrence in Stage II Colon Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1231-1243, December.
    20. Anne Spencer, 2004. "The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 807-818, August.

    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:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:1:p:56-70. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.