IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i3p291-303.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Preference-Based Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Utility Scores for Childhood Conditions in England and Scotland

Author

Listed:
  • Stavros Petrou

    (National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, stavros.petrou@npeu.ox.ac.uk, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, England)

  • Emil Kupek

    (National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, England)

Abstract

Background . A common feature of studies that have compiled lists or catalogues of preference-based health-related quality-of-life weights for inclusion within quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) is their focus upon adult populations. More generally, utility measurement in or on behalf of children has been constrained by a number of methodological concerns. Objective . To augment previous catalogues of preference-based health-related quality-of-life weights by estimating preference-based Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) multiattribute utility scores associated with a wide range of childhood conditions. Methods . Data for 2236 children from the ``Disability Survey 2000: Survey of Young People With a Disability and Sport'' formed the basis of this investigation. Ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression methods were used to estimate adjusted marginal disutilities for each condition from 2 thresholds: 1) a threshold of 1.0 representing perfect health and 2) a normative childhood utility threshold. Results . Prespecified statistical tests indicated a preference for the OLS regression model over the Tobit and CLAD models. The unadjusted mean, median, 25th percentile and 75th percentile HUI3 multiattribute utility scores and adjusted marginal disutilities are presented for 43 conditions. Notably, based on the OLS estimator, the adjusted marginal disutilities for hydrocephalus; learning and physical disabilities; other syndromes and associations; meningitis, encephalitis, and other infections of the central nervous system; and microcephaly were estimated at —0.889 (95% confidence interval [CI]: —0.727, —1.000), —0.858 (95% CI: —0.727, —0.989), —0.838 (95% CI: —0.668, —1.000), —0.826 (95% CI: —0.677, —0.975), and —0.820 (95% CI: —0.670, —0.970), respectively, when a perfect health threshold was applied, and —0.814 (95% CI: —0.656, —0.979), —0.783 (95% CI: —0.656, —0.918), —0.763 (95% CI: —0.597, —0.937), —0.751 (95% CI: —0.606, —0.904), and —0.745 (95% CI: —0.598, —0.899), respectively, when a normative childhood utility threshold was applied. Conclusion . Our estimates and their associated distributions can be used for the purposes of QALY estimation by analysts conducting economic evaluations within the childhood context.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:3:p:291-303
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327398
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08327398
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08327398?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. 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. Michael B. Nichol & Nishan Sengupta & Denise R. Globe, 2001. "Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Life Years," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 105-112, April.
    3. W Furlong & D Feeny & G Torrance & C Goldsmith & S DePauw & Z Zhu & M Denton & M Boyle, 1998. "Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1998-11, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    5. Alan Maynard;Karen Bloor, 1998. "Our Certain Fate: Rationing in Health Care," Monograph 000443, Office of Health Economics.
    6. William J Furlong & David H. Feeny & George W. Torrance & Ronald D. Barr, 2001. "The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) System for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Clinical Studies," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 2001-02, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    7. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Chao & Li, Qing & Sweetman, Arthur & Hurley, Jeremiah, 2015. "Mandatory universal drug plan, access to health care and health: Evidence from Canada," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 80-96.
    2. Michela Meregaglia & Elena Nicod & Michael Drummond, 2023. "The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1151-1216, September.
    3. J. Tilford & Nalin Payakachat & Erica Kovacs & Jeffrey Pyne & Werner Brouwer & Todd Nick & Jayne Bellando & Karen Kuhlthau, 2012. "Preference-Based Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 661-679, August.

    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. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    4. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    5. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    7. Hareth Al-Janabi & Nikki McCaffrey & Julie Ratcliffe, 2013. "Carer Preferences in Economic Evaluation and Healthcare Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 6(4), pages 235-239, December.
    8. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    9. Torbjørn Wisløff & Gunhild Hagen & Vida Hamidi & Espen Movik & Marianne Klemp & Jan Olsen, 2014. "Estimating QALY Gains in Applied Studies: A Review of Cost-Utility Analyses Published in 2010," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 367-375, April.
    10. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    11. Simon Walker & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Steve Palmer, 2012. "Coverage with evidence development, only in research, risk sharing or patient access scheme? A framework for coverage decisions," Working Papers 077cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Catherine Milte & Ruth Walker & Mary Luszcz & Emily Lancsar & Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "How Important Is Health Status in Defining Quality of Life for Older People? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Older South Australians," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 73-84, February.
    13. Renske J. Hoefman & Job van Exel & John M. Rose & E. J. van de Wetering & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2014. "A Discrete Choice Experiment to Obtain a Tariff for Valuing Informal Care Situations Measured with the CarerQol Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 84-96, January.
    14. Goebbels, Adrienne F.G. & Lakerveld, Jeroen & Ament, André J.H.A. & Bot, Sandra D.M. & Severens, Johan L., 2012. "Exploring non-health outcomes of health promotion: The perspective of participants in a lifestyle behaviour change intervention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 177-186.
    15. K. Klose & S. Kreimeier & U. Tangermann & I. Aumann & K. Damm, 2016. "Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Samer Kharroubi, 2015. "A Comparison of Japan and UK SF-6D Health-State Valuations Using a Non-Parametric Bayesian Method," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 409-420, August.
    19. Lazaros Andronis & Ilias Goranitis & Sue Bayliss & Rui Duarte, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for the Management of Bone Metastases: A Systematic Literature Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 301-322, March.
    20. 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.

    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:29:y:2009:i:3:p:291-303. 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.