IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i1d10.1007_s40271-017-0265-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescent Populations: An Empirical Comparison of the CHU9D and the PedsQLTM 4.0 Short Form 15

Author

Listed:
  • Karin Dam Petersen

    (Aalborg University)

  • Gang Chen

    (Monash University
    Flinders University)

  • Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa

    (University of South Australia Business School)

  • Katherine Stevens

    (University of Sheffield)

  • John Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Julie Ratcliffe

    (University of South Australia Business School)

Abstract

Objective The aim was to conduct an empirical assessment of the measurement properties of the preference-based Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) versus the non-preference-based Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL)™ 4.0 Short Form 15 Generic Core Scales (referred to as ‘PedsQL’) in an Australian community-based sample of adolescents. Methods An online survey including the CHU9D, the PedsQL, a self-reported general health question, and socio-demographic questions was administered to adolescents (aged 15–17 years). Descriptive summary statistics and psychometric analyses were conducted to assess levels of agreement and convergent validity between the instruments. Results A total of 775 adolescents (mean ± SD age 15.8 ± 0.8 years) completed the survey. The mean ± SD scores of the CHU9D and the PedsQL were 0.72 ± 0.22 and 72.86 ± 16.56, respectively. For both instruments, there were significant differences in health-related quality of life scores according to self-reported health status and socio-economic status. Overall, both the Spearman’s correlation (r = 0.63) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (0.77) suggested a high level of agreement. Conclusions The findings indicate good levels of agreement overall between the CHU9D and PedsQL and provide further support for the validity of the application of the CHU9D in the economic evaluation of adolescent health care treatment and service programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0265-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0265-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0265-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-017-0265-5?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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. William Boyce & Torbjorn Torsheim & Candace Currie & Alessio Zambon, 2006. "The Family Affluence Scale as a Measure of National Wealth: Validation of an Adolescent Self-Report Measure," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 78(3), pages 473-487, September.
    5. Bonny Parkinson & Catherine Sermet & Fiona Clement & Steffan Crausaz & Brian Godman & Sarah Garner & Moni Choudhury & Sallie-Anne Pearson & Rosalie Viney & Ruth Lopert & Adam Elshaug, 2015. "Disinvestment and Value-Based Purchasing Strategies for Pharmaceuticals: An International Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(9), pages 905-924, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Remo Russo & Katherine Stevens & Karin Dam Petersen & Julie Ratcliffe, 2017. "Mapping CHU9D Utility Scores from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF-15," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 453-467, April.
    8. Katherine Stevens, 2011. "Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health-related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 157-169, May.
    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. 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.
    2. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Kim Dalziel & Max Catchpool & Borja García-Lorenzo & Inigo Gorostiza & Richard Norman & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2020. "Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best–Worst Scaling," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 499-513, May.
    7. Catherine Fantaguzzi & Elizabeth Allen & Alec Miners & Deborah Christie & Charles Opondo & Zia Sadique & Adam Fletcher & Richard Grieve & Chris Bonell & Russell M. Viner & Rosa Legood, 2018. "Health-related quality of life associated with bullying and aggression: a cross-sectional study in English secondary schools," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(5), pages 641-651, June.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    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. 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.
    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. Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Remo Russo & Katherine Stevens & Karin Dam Petersen & Julie Ratcliffe, 2017. "Mapping CHU9D Utility Scores from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF-15," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 453-467, April.
    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. Mia Hakovirta & Johanna Kallio, 2016. "Children’s Perceptions of Poverty," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 9(2), pages 317-334, June.
    19. Jaroslava Kopcakova & Zuzana Dankulincova Veselska & Andrea Madarasova Geckova & Daniel Klein & Jitse P. Dijk & Sijmen A. Reijneveld, 2018. "Are school factors and urbanization supportive for being physically active and engaging in less screen-based activities?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 63(3), pages 359-366, April.
    20. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.

    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:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0265-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.